I agree with Jay that we need to make notification a priority for IPP.
Notification has languished during the 14 months.
One way to help the process along would be to have some people prototyping
(breadboarding) the current proposals and giving feedback. I think that
notification is an area that needs prototyping more than the rest of the
spec did in order to get a reasonable and simple spec.
From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 09:04
To: jkm at underscore.com; Manros, Carl-Uno B
Cc: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations
regist ration pr
You may be happy to learn that we have just put out a revised I-D on IPP
notifications and this subject will be discussed in our upcoming PWG meeting
in Copenhagen and in the IETF meeting in Oslo. The subject is not forgotten.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Martin [mailto:jkm at underscore.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 1999 9:48 AM
> To: Manros, Carl-Uno B
> Cc: ipp at pwg.org> Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations
> registration pr
>>> "Manros, Carl-Uno B" wrote:
> > All,
> > I have observed some of the comments on whether
> administrative functions
> > should be part of IPP or not.
> > Here is my take on it:
> > [...]
> > 6) What still remains to be done by the current IPP WG is
> to work out the
> > solutions for IPP Notifications, something that is
> explicitly in the current
> > charter.
>> Amen. The PWG really must address and solve the notification problem
> before attempting to move on to higher level admin functions, IMHO.
>> If you really want to make a difference in improving the general
> print environment, get going on solving the notification problem
> now, not later. Make this a priority, above all others.