Thanks for reviewing application/vnd.pwg-multiplexed. Could
you possibly break out your substantive comments and send them
in a _plaintext_ mail note to the IPP list, please?
[Note that ipp at pwg.org is an IETF mailing list, so rich text
mail notes are not suitable, by IETF process rules].
Please note that application/vnd.pwg-multiplexed is now in
the IESG Status queue (near the top for Informational RFCs),
with the action token to our IETF Applications Area Director,
This document is also in the RFC Editor's Queue (near the
top for Informational RFCs, by date received).
All of which means that it may enter IETF 'last call' very
soon, so any substantive changes need to be discussed on
the IPP list (and elsewhere, of course) ASAP.
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
From: GRANT,MELINDA (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:melinda_grant at hp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:00 PM
To: Robert Herriot; ipp at pwg.org; ifx at pwg.org; xp at pwg.org; UPnP Img WG
Subject: RE: IPP> Latest version of application/vnd.pwg-multiplexed
Attached is a marked-up version of your document. The mark-up contains
suggested changes, and questions or food for thought in the form of
comments. Many are trivial: simple typos, grammar, spelling and such. Many
are suggested wording changes that probably represent personal preference as
much as anything else; if it doesn't seem like an improvement to you, just
throw it in the bit-bucket. ;-)
There are a couple of substantive changes suggested, and if you disagree
with or have questions about those, they would probably merit some
We have some other comments that we will propose for the XHTML-Print
appendix dealing with the application/vnd.pwg-multiplexed content-type, as
they are specific to situations where the root message of content type
From: Robert Herriot [mailto:bob at herriot.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 2:35 PM
To: ipp at pwg.org; ifx at pwg.org
Subject: IPP> Latest version of application/vnd.pwg-multiplexed
The latest version of application/vnd.pwg-multiplexed (nee
application/multiplexed) is now available at:
This version makes many clarifications and changes its name. However, this
version doesn't change the representation.
I have requested that the rfc-editor publish it as an informational RFC.