OK Peter I hear you laud and clear,
but maybe the PWG should give it a new major revision number, to clearly
distinguish it from the published IETF RFCs, especilly if you intend to add
new required features, that were previously optional.
As IETF chair, I am getting increasingly concerned that the traffic on the
IETF IPP DL has little or nothing to do with IETF anymore...
Carl-Uno
Carl-Uno Manros
700 Carnegie Street #3724
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Tel +1-702-617-9414
Fax +1-702-617-9417
Mob +1-702-525-0727
Email carl at manros.com
Web www.manros.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of Zehler,
> Peter
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:07 AM
> To: 'carl at manros.com'; Zehler, Peter; 'McDonald, Ira'; ipp at pwg.org> Subject: RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?
>>> Carl-Uno,
>> What's an IETF? My objective is to get something, other than an
> rfc on mail
> or evil bits in IP headers, published. And I want to do it in a timely
> manner. I do not have the luxury of waiting years for our pleads with the
> IETF to be heard. The IETF appears to have little interest in addressing
> the boring subject of printing even though that it is a major source of
> support calls from real users.
>> I want to reach consensus and demonstrate interoperable implementations
> before I worry about how long, or if, the IETF will take to move this
> standard forward.
>> Pete
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl [mailto:carl at manros.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 11:08 AM
> To: Zehler, Peter; 'McDonald, Ira'; ipp at pwg.org> Subject: RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?
>>> Peter,
>> When you talk about an IPP/1.2 spec are you expecting that to be published
> by the IETF?
>> If so, should we plan to hold an IPP WG meeting in the next IETF Meeting
> (Vienna in July)?
>> Carl-Uno
>> Carl-Uno Manros
> 700 Carnegie Street #3724
> Henderson, NV 89052, USA
> Tel +1-702-617-9414
> Fax +1-702-617-9417
> Mob +1-702-525-0727
> Email carl at manros.com> Web www.manros.com
>> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of Zehler,
> > Peter
> > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 4:47 AM
> > To: 'McDonald, Ira'; 'ipp at pwg.org'
> > Subject: RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I think an IPP v1.2 would be a good idea. It would give us an
> opportunity
> > to collect all the extensions into a single document. (A one
> > stop shop for
> > IPP as opposed to about 1500 pages spread over some 28 documents) This
> > would also give us an opportunity for another Bake-Off. We have
> > done a very
> > good job on interoperability on the core specs. I am unsure
> > about the level
> > interoperability of the various extensions. I know some
> problems already
> > exist.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 5:51 PM
> > To: 'ipp at pwg.org'
> > Subject: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Dennis Carney (IBM) recently observed that the IPP Document Object
> > spec was starting to sound a lot like "IPP/1.2". Below, Michael
> > Sweet (CUPS) again raises the possibility of an "IPP.1.2".
> >
> > Is this a worthwhile idea?
> >
> > _If_ there was at least one other editor who was MS Word literate
> > (Dennis Carney, Tom Hastings, ...?), I would volunteer to collaborate
> > on writing an "IPP/1.2" spec with new significantly higher REQUIRED
> > features that consisted entirely (or almost entirely) of pointers to
> > the definitions of operations, objects, and attributes in the over 30
> > documents (IETF and IEEE/ISTO) that currently specify parts of IPP.
> >
> > Any takers?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > - Ira McDonald
> > High North Inc
> >
> >
> > ----- Excerpt ------
> >
> > Michael Sweet wrote:
> > >Hastings, Tom N wrote:
> > >> ...
> > >> 1. DEPRECATE the way a client can close a Job by supplying an empty
> > >
> > >Hmm, knowing that people are busy, etc., what are the chances that
> > >we do an IPP/1.2 specification based upon the current 1.1 docs +
> > >the common extensions (collections, notifications?, job-and-printer
> > >ops, plus the document object stuff)?
> > >
> > >This is another extension which is pointing to an IPP/1.2 version
> > >bump - deprecating operations is something that should be reserved
> > >for new versions, since otherwise you might not have at least 1
> > >version to provide a transition period...
> > >
> >
>