Ira,
> On Jan 16, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>> Prototype is not required for a Best Practice, but it's been done.
>> NOTHING in Process/3.0 or our PWG tradition says that, in fact,
> everything has to be prototyped. A simple email from Smith that
> says what HP has implemented would be a plus. Apple CUPS
> has certainly done 'negotiate' and 'certificate' right? What about
> 'oauth'?
We have the code to support 'certificate' but have not shipped a cupsd that supports it. Similarly, code to allow 'oauth' to be used was added in 2.2.7 or so but nothing uses it yet. 'requesting-user-name', 'basic', 'digest', and 'negotiate' have been implemented for a very long time.
Anyways, since this document is just referencing already-defined values for specs that have already been prototyped and documenting how to best implement then, I think we've satisfied any implied prototyping requirement.
> But specs that get Formal Vote do need to go Interim --> Prototype
> --> Stable (and not just LC/Vote on Interim). I'd be happy to say that
> the current draft was *meant* to be Prototype and voice vote it into
> Stable for WG LC.
Again, Process/3.0 has always been vague about the "prototype" status of non-standards-track documents - initial, interim, and stable are all called out but not prototype... :/
_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20190116/28bdfc58/attachment.html>