I glanced through the changes and they look good. Thanks for taking the
time, especially pro bono.
One question though: The language of how to join the IPP DL was deleted:
IPP Web Page: http://www.pwg.org/ipp/<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
IPP Mailing List: ipp at pwg.org
To subscribe to the ipp mailing list, send the following email:
1) send it to majordomo at pwg.org
2) leave the subject line blank
3) put the following two lines in the message body:
Implementers of this specification document are encouraged to join the IPP
Mailing List in order to participate in any discussions of clarification
issues and review of registration proposals for additional attributes and
values. In order to reduce spam the mailing list rejects mail from
non-subscribers, so you must subscribe to the mailing list in order to send
a question or comment to the mailing list.
Was this deletion a request of the AD or RFC Editor? It seems useful to
retain. The IPP DL will remain long after the IETF IPP WG is (finally)
dissolved. Its the same text that we have had in all IPP RFCs, including
From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 01:27
To: McDonald, Ira; pwg-announce at pwg.org
Cc: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: Re: PWG-ANNOUNCE> FW: Diff files for IPP> Notification Documents
I'm sorry that my reply is on pwg-announce. However, I need to respond to
the Ira's email that he sent via pwg-announce.
I hope that the PWG members are willing to accept the notification documents
in their current form and will not request any changes or enhancements
(small typos and errors excepted). In their current form, they are likely
to be published as RFCs soon because IETF reviewers have made comments about
the documents and I have made corrections that address IETF reviewers'
suggestions. If I make changes beyond those requested by the IETF
reviewers, there are two major problems.
First, I don't have time to make major changes and no one else does either.
I have offered to do only a small amount of pro-bono work. Second, the IETF
review process would have to start all over again, and the reviewers have
made it clear that they don't want to review the documents again. Unless
these documents progress in essentially their current form, they run a very
high risk of never being published by the IETF.
I believe that it is best for the PWG to ensure that the IETF publish these
3 documents, and that means that they must be published in their current
form. If PWG wants to make extensions to these documents, such extensions
should be published in new IEEE-ISTO documents via some new process that is
a successor to the process that produced these documents.
At Tuesday 6/22/2004 07:18 PM, McDonald, Ira wrote:
Bob Herriot has just finished doing minimal required
changes to the three IPP Notification documents
(requirements, base, and IPPGET delivery method)
to respond to the pending IETF reviewer comments.
If you don't like these semantics, this is your LAST
chance to change them for IPP, before they move onto
the IETF 'standards track'. Note that WIMS currently
supports leases (for example) via different attributes.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com
From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [ mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org
<mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org> ]On Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 6:22 PM
To: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: Diff files for IPP> Documents
I have uploaded .doc and .pdf files.
Each file is the diff of the current Word file that is the source for the
latest IETF draft against the Word file that was the source of the preceding
and similar for .doc files.
They are in the usual pwg/ipp/new_NOT directory.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...