IPP> MOD - Updated IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics posted - revie w for 2/1 7 telecon

IPP> MOD - Updated IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics posted - revie w for 2/1 7 telecon

IPP> MOD - Updated IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics posted - revie w for 2/1 7 telecon

Manros, Carl-Uno B cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com
Mon Feb 15 18:46:25 EST 1999


Paul,

This was an unanimous recommendation from a meeting you did not attend.

It was felt that as so much time has passed to get the IIPP/1.0 out and that
many implementations now support the new operations they might as well go
into the main spec. 

Including them in IPP/1.1 does not mean that we cannot also register them as
IPP/1.0 extensions as originally planned.
Would you be happy with that? I have some difficulty to see your problem.

Carl-Uno 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Moore [mailto:paulmo at microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 3:23 PM
> To: 'Manros, Carl-Uno B'; IETF-IPP
> Subject: RE: IPP> MOD - Updated IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics posted -
> revie w for 2/1 7 telecon
> 
> 
> Why do these need to be rolled into the 1.1 spec? It is 
> perfectly possible
> for them to remain outside the spec - as with any other extensions to
> operations or attributes. Note that this is an editorial 
> question - not
> related in any way to what set1 does or where it came from.  
> By continously
> rolling new operations into the main spec we churn the main 
> spec and also
> create an implication that extensions NOT rolled into the 
> main specs are in
> fact second class citizens.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 2:51 PM
> To: IETF-IPP
> Subject: RE: IPP> MOD - Updated IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics posted -
> revie w for 2/1 7 telecon
> 
> 
> I have a comment on one of Tom's statements, please see below.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 2:39 AM
> > To: ipp
> > Subject: IPP> MOD - Updated IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics 
> > posted - review
> > for 2/1 7 telecon
> > 
> > 
> > I have posted the IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics draft with 
> > revision marks in:
> > 
> > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/ipp-model-v11-990212-rev.doc
> > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/ipp-model-v11-990212-rev.pdf
> > 
> > Please review these additions and changes and send e-mail if 
> > any comments.
> > We want to send this as an Internet-Draft before the IETF 
> > cutoff for the March meeting, which I think is 23-Feb.  
> > 
> > The additions have already been approved by the WG as 
> > extensions to IPP/1.0 and the changes have been approved in 
> principle by
> the WG. 
> 
> The source of the new optional operations is the following:
> 
> Paul Moore wrote a contribution in mid-1998 to the PWG and 
> suggested that we
> add a few new optional operations. 
> 
> The PWG has processed this and have produced several 
> intermediate drafts
> called the "IPP Optional Operations - Set 1", with the intention of
> introducing them as registered extensions once the IPP/1.0 
> was published. If
> you have participated in any of the IPP meetings lately, or 
> have looked up
> the drafts referenced from the IPP web site, these operations 
> should be no
> news to you. However, as this will be the first time that 
> they are actually
> included in an Internet-draft document, it might be new to 
> some of you. The
> new operations go somewhat beyond the original charter for 
> the IPP WG, but
> are, like most of the other operations, inspired by similar 
> functionality in
> the ISO DPA standard.
> 
> As a number of implementations have already included the new 
> operations, and
> that they will be part of the IPP testing in March, the 
> latest IPP meeting
> recommended, as previously announced to this DL, that they 
> should go in as
> part of the IPP/1.1 series of documents. 
> 
> Carl-Uno
> 
>  
>  
> 



More information about the Ipp mailing list