Minutes from PWG IPP Phone Conference 970709
Attending: Carl-Uno Manros
The main discussion topic was to get further reactions to Bob Herriot's
latest draft for the Protocol document. The following points were discussed:
- Clarify terminology to be able to clearly distinguish between parametrs
that are attributes vs. the ones that are not. It was also suggested to
have a separate naming convention for non-attribute parameters so they
could be easily distiguished.
- The subject of "private" operations came up. It was decided to reserv
operation numbers up to 16K, which would allow experimental use of new
operations using higher numbers.
- The subject of an additional element in the encoding to express type was
brought up for discussion again. Bob will be writing up an alternative
text that includes the typing field and try to solicit input from other
experts that were not in the call, to determine whether we should raise
this subject for renewed discussion.
- Bob will make further updates to the protocol draft. The plan is now to
have a version ready as an I-D for early next week.
A number of other home work assignments from Nassau were discussed:
- Tom and Jay have discussed some further improvements on the IPP/RFC1179
mapping, and Steve and Bob gave some further verbal comments, which Tom
will include in the document. Some discussion was held around the actual
use of the RFC1179 parameters vs. the documented use in RFC1179. It was
suggested that our document will point out common practise were it differs
from the parameters in RFC1179, but will not go into discussing parameters
which have been invented as extensions by various vendors. It was discussed
how urgent it was to get this out as an I-D and the conclusion was that we
should try to get it out ASAP, so we can get feedback before the Munich
meeting. We expect to send the document to the IETF early next week.
- Steve will take on the task to write up the "Why we decided to shoot
ourselves in the foot" document as requested by Harald, but choose a more
suitable title and explain our rationale for using HTTP 1.1 and other
architectural choices. This should also be ready early next week, so it
can be sent to IETF together with the Protocol I-D.
- The Security subgroup will contribute texts to the Model, Directory, and
Protocol documents by the end of this week.
- Scott has promised to try to have a new version of the Model document out
by July 14 containing the updates discussed in Nashua, plus any comments
that have come in over the DL later. Bob will communicate updates to and
issues discovered in the Protocol document directly to Scott by the end of
- Carl-Uno has taken on to update the Requirements document for a revised
version in time for the Munich deadline. Comments have come from Peter
Zehler and Roger deBry so far. Send any further comments to the DL and
Some discussion was held on the IETF rules for last calls about consensus.
It was suggested that we will not need to make any last calls for the WG
until after Munich, but we should warn the DL particpants that we expect to
make last calls for all the documents not too long after the Munich meeting.
The next IPP Phone Conference will be held next Wednesday on July 16.
Carl-Uno and Tom are unlikely to attend next week as we will be in a
training course. Steve Zilles will therefore lead next week's phone
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros at cp10.es.xerox.com