I can assure Don Wright and others that we are going to do the things
according to the IETF rules and the majority view of the WG members.
As I proposed in my earlier message, let's get on with resolving the issues
from the bake-off and try to have them wrapped up in the next IPP meeting, I
think it is in every Implementer's interest to have them resolved quickly.
I appreciate Peter's classification of the "issues" into categories.
I am not sure that we even want to address all of them. An example is the
proposal to add yet another optional operation, for which I have so far seen
little in the way of stated requirement. If we want to pursue this, I would
like to quickly see a clear statement of the problem we are trying to solve
first. It smells like we are trying to correct a limitation in the HTTP
layer with a hack in IPP, which seems to contradict our overall model of
keeping the IPP operations independent of transport.
As far as I am concerned, I don't think we have ANY issues that are specific
to the IPP/1.1 version. A few implementations had already implemented the
ipp:// scheme correctly at the bake-off. People who have implemented it,
confirm that is trivial and can be done in a couple of days at most.
What we have not yet been able to test properly is the TLS security part. Is
there a strong opinion that you want to see that tested before progressing
with IPP/1.1 ?
As Harry pointed out, it is sometimes an ungrateful task to be the chair of
this IETF WG and try to get this job finished, but I will keep the whip up
until we are done.
Principal Engineer - Xerox Architecture Center - 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