IPP> Document and Working Group Status

IPP> Document and Working Group Status

IPP> Document and Working Group Status

Robert Herriot bob at herriot.com
Mon Jun 21 18:49:46 EDT 2004


Scott Hollenbeck has reviewed the changes requested by the viewer and asked 
for a couple of minor tweaks, which I have now added.  He asked that I 
submit the revised documents to the I-D admin. I have done so. They should 
be posted on the IETF web site in a few days.

I have also uploaded the following documents to the PWG web site at 
pwg/ipp/new_NOT:

Update of: draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-11.txt
      draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-12.txt
      ipp-not-spec-040621.doc
      ipp-not-spec-040621.pdf


Update of: draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-09.txt
      draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-10.txt
      ipp-notify-get-040621.doc
      ipp-notify-get-040621.pdf


Update of: draft-ietf-ipp-not-06.txt
     draft-ietf-ipp-not-07.txt
     ipp-notification-requirements-040621.doc
     ipp-notification-requirements-040621.pdf

Hopefully, we are nearing the publication of these three documents and 
completion the IPP notification extension.

Bob Herriot


At Friday 6/18/2004 10:11 AM, Danny.M.Brennan at kp.org wrote:

>All:
>
>This working group has four Internet-Drafts [1] that have been in the "IESG
>Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed" state for units measured in years.  What
>this tells me is that the working group has been unresponsive to IESG review
>comments.  I have asked the WG chair and at least one editor to review the
>IESG comments and update the document as needed, but the response I received
>was lukewarm.
>
>Years is too long.  Something has got to change.  It's either time to update
>the documents, finish them up, and close the working group, or to drop them
>entirely and close the working group.
>
>To that end: I want to see a reply to this note from the WG chair, posted to
>this working group mailing list by 0000 UTC Friday 2 July 2004 (a little
>more than two weeks from now), describing what the working group intends to
>do with each of the four documents.  If no such plan is provided, the
>working group will be closed due to inactivity and the documents will be
>dropped.
>
>If a plan is provided it must include either a request to drop the document
>or a date by which time the document will be updated and sent to the I-D
>administrator for publication.  You may wish to consider finding new
>document editors if the legacy editors are unable to update the documents.
>I am willing to work with you on timeframes if the group shows a willingness
>to move forward with the needed document updates.
>
>IESG review comments can be found in the I-D tracker:
>
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi
>
>Discussion of possible ways forward is appropriate...
>
>-Scott-
>IESG Applications Area Advisor for IPP
>
>[1]
>draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-11.txt
>draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2-03.txt
>draft-ietf-ipp-not-06.txt
>draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-09.txt
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/ipp/attachments/20040621/0090a845/attachment.html


More information about the Ipp mailing list