IPP> ADM - Last Call for IPP/1.1 documents

IPP> ADM - Last Call for IPP/1.1 documents

IPP> ADM - Last Call for IPP/1.1 documents

harryl at us.ibm.com harryl at us.ibm.com
Tue Mar 16 13:34:02 EST 1999



 My basic position is...

1. The 2nd bakeoff was a powerful demonstration of growing acceptance and
improved implementation - poising IPP as an eminent standard by any
definition of the word.

2. I think it is straightforward (process) that issues raised at the
bakeoff should be addressed prior to further advancement of the
specification. This may occupy a short or long period of time... it depends
on us.

3. Issues related to IPP scheme and TLS, while no less important in terms
of adoption by the standards society, become more academic as energy builds
behind IPPv1. We should pursue these (mandated) topics less on merit or
urgency but more on diligent technical feasibility and interoperatiblty.
Let's do our best to determine, understand and uphold the spirit of these
requested functions in our next version.

4. When the issues have been adequately addressed it will be appropriate to
recommend a new version of IPP. Just as we shouldn't rush into this... nor
should we drag our feet.   I agree we should avoid "creeping
functionality".

Linkage between organizations (IETF/PWG) and periodic sympathy (or lack of)
in timing of events (PWG meetings/events vs. IETF meetings/deadlines) can
result in some real jamming of the accelerator or the brake, depending on
our perception of conditions. (I would hate to be in the IPP Chairman’s
position!). I think a calm review of the history of IPP , would affirm that
we're run our share of stop signs (even skidded into a few telephone
poles!)... but this hasn't changed the overall effectiveness of our
resulting solution... only made the ride a bit more exciting!

One area where I perceive urgency is in harmonizing with other standards in
formation (like IFAX). Here, however, I would urge IFAX to sample the
energy behind IPPv1 and, again, work with us on the actual feasibility and
operational characteristics rather than focusing on agency approval as the
only valid benchmark of a standard. No one is suggesting we abandon the
goal of our charter or shift into neutral. IFAX should be able to look up
the road and see us coming without someone waving a flag and the IETF
should (I think does) encourage the attempted "merging" of these evolving
standards rather than suggesting that neither can make a move toward the
other without being specifically directed to do so. (I don't think this is
the intent of the IETF... it is the way we sometimes behave based on our
interpretation of the IETF process).

Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
harryl at us.ibm.com





More information about the Ipp mailing list