At 08:15 AM 3/17/1999 -0800, Ron Bergman wrote:
>>I don't believe that anyone has been suggesting that the IPP protocol not
>be on the standards track. The only question is timing. We have been
>waiting for over a year for approval of version 1.0 and the documents are
>still not published as RFCs. Seems that we should at least wait until the
>1.0 is completed and the feedback from the Bake-off is resolved before a
>"Last Call" is issued.
Hummmm I thought 1.0 is completed?? The RFC's are due any day now. Have I
missed something here?
>You seem to imply that the IPP version 1.1 must be published prior to the
>commencement of the Fxx project. As long as IPP/v1.1 is published prior
>to the submission of Fxx (to the ITU or IETF) there should not be a
>problem. This work should be able to proceed in parallel.
Oh NO... I'm very sorry if you got that impression. It must be clear that
1.1 is headed towards Standard Track and yes, of course, the work can go on
in parrellel to any normal 1.1 revisions or augmentations.
>Also, any new IPP attributes required for Fxx could be included at this
>time. (The addition of attributes is NOT a change to the protocol.) I am
>not suggesting that this work be rushed to meet the "panic" deadlines for
>IPP, but we should try to coordinate these efforts so as to minimize the
>total work for both groups.
Well IMHO I do not believe that you have to add anything to IPP 1.1 even
now, except those revisions necessary to normally enhance IPP or correct
problems discovered in the Bake-Off's, but we'll see as we move along.
But I'm sure that there will be new IPP attributes or mandated requirements
needed by TCNDOCS ( name that WG v2.0) and those would be published as a
separate document by the new WG in consultation and coordination with the
IPP WG, the FAX WG and other interested parties [read ITU]. It think it is
abundantly clear that the TCNDOCS would be a super set of IPP 1.1. That
distinction has to be made clear now.
IPP 1.1 is the baseline document that the new WG will use to build upon.
BTW ...The new proposal for a WG name TCNDOCS or "Document Transmission
with Timely Delivery, Confirmation and Notification"
There is ample time to resolve these things, I still need to get a charter
approved from the IESG, an new Goals document needs to be drafted and there
was a request to have the new WG engage in "due dilligence" of existing
protocols that might meet the Goals tests such as SESSION based SMTP etc
... there is the ITU ....
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey at ix.netcom.com