IPP> Re: IPP Charter modifications

IPP> Re: IPP Charter modifications

IPP> Re: IPP Charter modifications

Scott Isaacson Scott_Isaacson at novell.com
Mon Mar 10 15:40:02 EST 1997


Keith,


Thanks for your response.  I appreciate the perspecitive you add.


************************************************************
Scott A. Isaacson
Print Services Consulting Engineer
Novell Inc., 122 E 1700 S, Provo, UT 84606
V: (801) 861-7366, (800) 453-1267 x17366
F: (801) 861-4025, E: scott_isaacson at novell.com
W: http://www.novell.com
************************************************************




>>> Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu> 03/08/97 01:23am >>>
> The IETF has a somewhat different composition than the current IPP
>  group. Different sets of people will naturally identify different needs.
> For those who attended the IPP BOF at the last IETF, the IETF's 
> concern over inventing a new protocol instead of adapting lpr should
>  not be surprising.  Several IETF participants have expressed similar
>  concerns to me personally.    I've tried to convince those people that
>  lpr is  basically broken and non-extensible, but some of them are still
>  concerned about compatibility.  Hence the charter requirement.


I have now had a chance to go back and read the proposed charter text
and all of the email related to this, and I actually agree with the many of
the conclusions that have been drawn and proposed on how to handle
this.  I was reacting to what I THOUGHT  the intent of proposed charter
changes rather than what they turned out to be.


>  I think it's fair to say that there is suspicion both on the
> part of some members of IPP to IETF, and of some members of IETF
> toward IPP.  The best way to address this problem is to get the
> two groups working together.


I, for one,  fully expect to have a good relationship between the working
group and the IESG and other IETFers.   At this point, I think that it would
be better for the industry to have a real, implementable,  standard rather
than just a hacked out wart based on some combination of existing
prototype products,  barely acceptable to the IETF let alone
world of developers and product teams.


Scott



More information about the Ipp mailing list