At 12:16 PM 7/10/97 PDT, David_Kellerman at nls.com wrote:
>> In today's meeting we decided to propose one last small tweak to the
>> IPP protocol. We decided that I would send out this proposal for all
>> of you to read and comment on.
>>>> I think that it is an improvement. I hope that you will agree.
>>Please. I can't see where this change amounts to a hill of beans, one
>way or the other. I've decoded enough line encodings, with and without
>type tags, to be confident that, in the big picture, this doesn't
>matter. What's driving me crazy is to see "the protocol encoding
>discussion that wouldn't die." And each time we get a slightly
>different quorum, it takes off in a different direction. It's chewed up
>endless e-mail messages on the mailing list, it took a half day of the
>IPP meetings in Nashua, and I'm sure that's only a small sampling.
>>:: David Kellerman Northlake Software 503-228-3383
as chair of the group I would also like us to reach agreements more quickly
and move on. On the other hand, the IETF process does not recognize
metings such as the one we held in Nassua to be binding for the IETF WG,
which means that recommendations from such meetings can still be questioned
on the DL.
The impression from our discussions in Nashua and earlier seem to indicate
that there are several "good enough" solutions and that it boils down to
which one is a particular expert's favorite. Even so, we need to get to a
I want to hear back, on the DL, as quickly as possible where people now
stand, so that we can indeed put this particular part of our specification
to bed and move on. I would like your responses back no later than Monday,
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