Randy Turner has done a fine job of defending the longstanding approach
for modeling a print job using the URI technique. I found Randy's remarks
quite complete and a very compelling statement of his position.
In fairness to the many people who have invested so much time to get
IPP to this point, it would be dandy if someone could post a counter
position to the IPP list, stating the rationale in the same level of
detail as Randy has done.
We have got to STOP making such extreme 90-degree turns in the development
of IPP, particularly at face-to-face meetings. IETF rules notwithstanding,
it just isn't fair to those of us who were unable to make the meeting but
still invest considerable time in hashing out the standard.
PLEASE! If someone has a serious issue/concept/etc to promote for IPP,
then at least have the courtesy of posting a position statement to the
IPP mailing list as quickly as possible. That way we can gather comments
from around the globe *before* the face-to-face meeting is held.
It's almost getting to the point where participating in the IPP mailing
list is totally useless...since all one has to do is attend one of the
meetings and push for a 90-degree last-minute turn in the development of
the standard. Let's not do this kind of thing, ok?
As usual, if someone thinks I'm out of line here, then by all means please
say so. As a small business owner--and individual contributor to various
PWG-sponsored IETF standards efforts--I just can't afford all the time and
money if these kinds of situations keep recurring. (And I'll bet there
are lots of BIG business folks who feel the same way.)
...jay