IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining IPP draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR RESPONSES April 12, 2004

IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining IPP draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR RESPONSES April 12, 2004

IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining IPP draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR RESPONSES April 12, 2004

McDonald, Ira imcdonald at sharplabs.com
Wed Mar 17 12:54:03 EST 2004


Hi,

Some IEEE/ISTO PWG context on notifications:

(a) PSI/1.0 (SOAP-based Web printing) is complete 
    and has abandoned notifications because of 
    schedule.  
(b) IPPFAX/1.0 (small subset of IPP/1.1) is nearing 
    completion.  It will be politically hard to add 
    REQUIRED notifications support back to IPPFAX/1.0 
    (there are NO options in IPPFAX/1.0).
(c) WBMM (SOAP-based fleet management of imaging
    systems and devices) plans to send notifications 
    in XML format using the native WBMM application 
    protocol (and is now defining them).  
(d) There is no current IEEE/ISTO PWG project that 
    would use the semantics (or the protocol) of 
    these IPP notifications.

Michael Sweet has commented that nothing can be done
about SPAM.  But Ned Freed specifically requested
that an IPP system supporting 'mailto:' either SHOULD
or MUST use best practices (e.g., active SPAM defense
using ORB-based denial of subscriptions).

At the IPP interop event several years ago, seven vendors
showed 'mailto:' IPP notifications.  None of them showed
'indp:' (reverse HTTP) IPP notifications.  The few IPPGET
(server-directed polling) IPP notifications were never
tested.


Some IEEE/ISTO PWG context on system admin:

(a) PSI/1.0 and IPPFAX/1.0 both badly need system
    admin for configuration and startup/shutdown.
(b) WBMM is defining SOAP-based system admin based
    on a simplified SUBSET of the IPP System Admin 
    operations.
(c) Michael Sweet replied awhile ago that he was
    implementing more IPP System Admin operations
    in the next major CUPS release.  But the CUPS
    operations are a DIFFERENT subset of the IPP
    System Admin operations than WBMM has chosen
    to add to the PWG Semantic Model.  
(d) The coherence problem here is not trivial.  
    Mapping WBMM operations at a WBMM proxy to IPP 
    operations will not be possible in many cases.  
    Therefore, WBMM proxy system admin won't be done
    via IPP (SNMP, SOAP, or something else will be
    used instead).


Lastly, the IETF process and the typical delays in
the RFC Editor's queue are much too long for these
dormant IPP specs to be useful in either the PWG
IPPFAX/1.0 or WBMM/1.0 projects.  

And the PWG has repeatedly decided NOT to charter 
a continuing PWG IPP project.  There is no PWG 
support for continued development or any future 
interop testing of IPP extensions.

If published as RFCs, these IPP extensions would
never be advanced (because of no interop testing).

Cheers,
- Ira 

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com

-----Original Message-----
From: carl at manros.com [mailto:carl at manros.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 6:23 PM
To: Gail Songer; Ipp at Pwg. Org
Cc: Tom Hastings
Subject: RE: IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining
IPP draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR
RESPONSES April 12, 2004


Gail,

I agree with you that there seems to be more interest than I had expected.
Sometimes it takes rather long for implementors to react. Nobody would be
more happy to than me to see those drafts finalized and published as RFCs,
considering the amount of effort that we all put into discussing and
drafting what we now have in the past.

I would also hope that Michael Sweet could spare a bit of time to get the
technical content correct as I am sure he will have to look more closely at
the specs before implementing them.

Maybe there is somebody else that can take on the editing task. Looking at
the comments from the AD it doesn't seem like an unsurmountable task. The
more severe comments are against the management draft, for which I so far
haven't seen anybody pledge to get that sorted out.

If nobody else steps up to it, I migth even volonteer to do it myself, but I
couldn't even start on it until mid-April, when I am back from a trip to
Japan. Also, it is usually viewed with quite a bit of suspicion in the IETF
to have the WG Chair also be the Editor.

I will be leaving the US on Saturday morning and may not be able to get to
my email for 3 weeks after that. Also, don't be surprised to get error
messages back stating that my mailbox is full during that period.

Don't let that stop you from discussing this subject to your hearts content
on the DL while I am away...

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros
700 Carnegie Street #3724
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Tel +1-702-617-9414
Fax +1-702-617-9417
Mob +1-702-525-0727
Email carl at manros.com
Web    www.manros.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gail Songer [mailto:gail.songer at peerless.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 9:44 AM
> To: carl at manros.com; Ipp at Pwg. Org
> Cc: Tom Hastings
> Subject: RE: IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining
> IPP draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR
> RESPONSES April 12, 2004
>
>
> Carl-Uno,
>
> I don't deny that it's our own fault that these specifications have not
> been completed. (Well, the length of time it takes to get stuff through
> IETF doesn't help any!)
>
> However, I don't believe that it's accurate to say that there is no
> interest in ever finishing them.  Micheal has expressed that CUPS will
> have some support for notifications, and IPPFax was interested in
> requiring it.
>
> At this point in time, I don't have the bandwidth to take on anymore
> work and I really don't know anyone who does.  Which is why I was
> curious about reclaiming rights.  Someone was mentioning that it may be
> possible for the authors to reclaim the rights and then submit the specs
> to the PWG, at which point we may be able to modify them at some later
> date.
>
> Gail
>
>
> Gail Songer
> Peerless Systems Corp
> gsonger at peerless.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: carl at manros.com [mailto:carl at manros.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 9:11 AM
> To: Gail Songer; Ipp at Pwg. Org
> Cc: Tom Hastings
> Subject: RE: IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining
> IPP draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR
> RESPONSES April 12, 2004
>
> Gail,
>
> We only have ourselves to blame for the non-progression of these drafts
> in
> the IETF. Nobody in the IPP WG stepped up to the task of responding to
> the
> comments that we go back from our Area Director. If you or somebody else
> in
> the WG is prepared to pick up the job where we left it off these drafts
> can
> still be progressed. It seems that Tom Hastings is not prepared to spend
> more editor's time on this as he is already overextended. Also, this is
> not
> only an editing job, it is also a matter of reaching IPP WG agreements
> on
> the changes requested by the Area Director.
>
> These drafts are IETF drafts and although people who are also PWG
> members
> have made most of the contributions in them they have not been "given by
> the
> PWG to the IETF", so there cannot be any question about "giving them
> back".
> As for the PWG getting the rigth to take over some of the drafts as
> basis
> for possible future PWG standards, I think that would be a question for
> the
> PWG chair to take up directly with the IESG, via our new Area Director.
> I
> don't think this can be handled on the IETF WG level, although I can
> certainly contribute in the discussions.
>
> Carl-Uno
>
> Carl-Uno Manros
> 700 Carnegie Street #3724
> Henderson, NV 89052, USA
> Tel +1-702-617-9414
> Fax +1-702-617-9417
> Mob +1-702-525-0727
> Email carl at manros.com
> Web    www.manros.com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of Gail
> > Songer
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:27 AM
> > To: carl at manros.com; Ipp at Pwg. Org
> > Cc: Tom Hastings
> > Subject: RE: IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining
> > IPP draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR
> > RESPONSES April 12, 2004
> >
> >
> > Carl-Uno,
> >
> > I'm not sure it's correct to say that there is no interest in these
> > standards.  IPPFax had to pull IPP notifications from our list of
> > required functionality sometime in the last 6 months because the specs
> > were not progressing in the IETF and not because we didn't want to use
> > them.
> >
> > Can we get the rights to these specs back from the IETF? (With the
> hope
> > of someday completing them ourselves?)
> >
> > Gail
> >
> > Gail Songer
> > Peerless Systems Corp
> > gsonger at peerless.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: carl at manros.com [mailto:carl at manros.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 2:40 PM
> > To: Ipp at Pwg. Org
> > Cc: Carl-Uno Manros; Tom Hastings
> > Subject: IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining IPP
> > draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR
> RESPONSES
> > April 12, 2004
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I agree with Tom Hastings that the interest for these drafts have
> > decreased
> > dramatically since they were first created almost 3 years ago. I clear
> > sign
> > is that were have not responded to comments from our Area Director
> > received
> > a very long time ago.
> > It also seems that there is a lack of interest to implement the
> features
> > in
> > these drafts from vendors, so who would we be writing these standards
> > for? I
> > think we are just spinning our wheels to no effect!
> >
> > However, before we officially ask the IETF secretariat to kill off
> these
> > documents for good, I would like to give everybody in the WG a chance
> to
> > comment.
> >
> > If you or your organization still have interest in pursuing the
> > completion
> > of any of these 4 draft documents, I want to hear from you on the IPP
> DL
> > no
> > later than April 12, 2004. This gives you plenty of time to think this
> > over
> > one more time.
> >
> > If we decide to drop these documents is also means that we can drop
> the
> > IPP
> > WG as an active IETF WG. As stated, the IPP DL will still remain in
> > place
> > for discussion of the RFCs that have made it to Proposed Standards or
> > Informational earlier in the WG life cycle.
> >
> > If we don't hear from you before the deadline, it will be interpreted
> as
> > if
> > you agree to close down any further work in the WG.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Carl-Uno Manros
> > Chair of IETF IPP WG
> > 700 Carnegie Street #3724
> > Henderson, NV 89052, USA
> > Tel +1-702-617-9414
> > Fax +1-702-617-9417
> > Mob +1-702-525-0727
> > Email carl at manros.com
> > Web    www.manros.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of
> > Hastings,
> > > Tom N
> > > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 1:49 PM
> > > To: Manros, Carl-Uno
> > > Cc: ipp at pwg.org
> > > Subject: IPP> Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining IPP documents
> > and
> > > close down the IETF IPP WG
> > >
> > >
> > > Carl-Uno,
> > >
> > > You asked me to proposed actions about the remaining IPP
> > > documents that are
> > > in the IETF standards track, since I'm the editor of them.
> > >
> > > After talking with you and others, it seems best to withdraw the
> > remaining
> > > IETF IPP documents and close down the IPP WG.  There does not seem
> to
> > be
> > > sufficient interest in implementing these specifications to warrant
> > > continuing them.  With only one or two companies are interested, it
> is
> > > better not to pursue these documents in the IETF.  The IPP DL will
> > remain
> > > indefinitely for discussions about IPP RFCs, issues, registrations,
> > etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > From the IESG ID Status Tracker, the IPP WG has 4 documents:
> > >
> > > 1. "Internet Printing Protocol (IPP): IPP Event Notifications and
> > > Subscriptions", R. Herriot and T. Hastings, 2/21/2003,
> > > <draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-11.txt> (Proposed standard)
> > >
> > > Draft Name:  draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-11.txt (WG <ipp> submission)
> > > IESG Discussion: Available
> > > Version:  11
> > > Intended Status:  Proposed Standard
> > > On Next Agenda?  No
> > > Current State:  IESG Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed
> > > Shepherding AD: Hollenbeck, Scott
> > > Status Date: 2003-02-13
> > > Note: Revised version needed to address discuss comments
> > >
> > >
> > > 2.	"Internet Printing Protocol: Requirements for IPP
> > Notifications", T.
> > > Hastings, R Bergman, R deBry, 07/23/2001,
> <draft-ietf-ipp-not-06.txt>
> > > (Informational)
> > >
> > > Draft Name:  draft-ietf-ipp-not-06.txt (WG <ipp> submission)
> > > IESG Discussion: Not Available
> > > Version:  06
> > > Intended Status:  Informational
> > > On Next Agenda?  No
> > > Current State:  IESG Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed
> > > Shepherding AD: Hollenbeck, Scott
> > > Status Date: 2003-02-13
> > > Note: Revised ID needed to address discuss comments
> > >
> > >
> > > 3.	"Internet Printing Protocol (IPP): The 'ippget'
> Delivery Method
> > for
> > > Event Notifications", R. Herriot, T. Hastings, and H. Lewis,
> > 2/21/2003,
> > > <draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-09.txt>  (Proposed standard)
> > >
> > > Draft Name:  draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-09.txt (WG <ipp> submission)
> > > IESG Discussion: Not Available
> > > Version:  09
> > > Intended Status:  Proposed Standard
> > > On Next Agenda?  No
> > > Current State:  IESG Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed
> > > Shepherding AD: Hollenbeck, Scott
> > > Status Date: 2003-02-13
> > > Note: Revised ID needed to address discuss comments
> > >
> > >
> > > 4.	"Internet Printing Protocol (IPP): Job and Printer
> > Administrative
> > > Operations", T. Hastings, R Bergman, Carl Kugler, 07/23/2001,
> > > <draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2-03.txt>   (Proposed standard)
> > >
> > > Draft Name:  draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2-03.txt (WG <ipp> submission)
> > > IESG Discussion: Available
> > > Version:  03
> > > Intended Status:  Proposed Standard
> > > On Next Agenda?  No
> > > Current State:  IESG Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed
> > > Shepherding AD: Hollenbeck, Scott
> > > Status Date:
> > > Note: IESG feedback returned to WG 20-Jun-2002; new ID needed
> > > with improved
> > > security considerations section
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: carl at manros.com [mailto:carl at manros.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 07:53
> > > To: ipp at pwg.org
> > > Cc: Tom Hastings
> > > Subject: FW: New AD and WG Status Request
> > > Importance: High
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I am forwarding this message from our new IETF Area Director. I
> > > will need to
> > > consult with the editors to prepare a reply to Scott Hollenbeck.
> > > We need to
> > > do that within the next week or so as I will be leaving for a 3
> > > week trip to
> > > Japan on March 20, so please get back to me ASAP to agree on a phone
> > > meeting.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Carl-Uno
> > >
> > > Carl-Uno Manros
> > > 700 Carnegie Street #3724
> > > Henderson, NV 89052, USA
> > > Tel +1-702-617-9414
> > > Fax +1-702-617-9417
> > > Mob +1-702-525-0727
> > > Email carl at manros.com
> > > Web    www.manros.com
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Scott Hollenbeck [mailto:sah at 428cobrajet.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 6:37 AM
> > > To: Andrew Gierth; Carl-Uno Manros; Claudio Allocchio; Donald
> Eastlake
> > > 3rd; Glenn Parsons; Hiroshi Tamura; John Noerenberg; Lisa Dusseault;
> > Ned
> > > Freed; Pete Resnick; Rik Drummond; Russ Allbery; Steve Hole
> > > Cc: 'Ted Hardie'; sah at 428cobrajet.net
> > > Subject: New AD and WG Status Request
> > > Importance: High
> > >
> > >
> > > All:
> > >
> > > I had a chance to meet with several of you while at the IETF meeting
> > in
> > > Seoul last week.  This note is primarily for those of you that I
> > > haven't yet
> > > met.
> > >
> > > Ned Freed's IESG term as Applications AD expired with the end of
> > > the meeting
> > > in Seoul.  Ted Hardie and I are now your Applications area
> directors.
> > My
> > > responsibilities will include the following WGs:
> > >
> > > EDIINT (Rik Drummond)
> > > FAX (Claudio Allocchio, Hiroshi Tamura)
> > > IMAPEXT (Pete Resnick)
> > > IPP (Carl-Uno Manros)
> > > MSGTRAK (Steve Hole)
> > > NNTPEXT (Ned Freed, Russ Allbery)
> > > TRADE (Donald Eastlake 3rd)
> > > USEFOR (Pete Resnick, Andrew Gierth)
> > > VPIM (John Noerenberg, Glenn Parsons)
> > > XMPP (Pete Resnick, Lisa Dusseault)
> > >
> > > I'd like to get a handle on where each of the these WGs is with
> > respect to
> > > the milestones identified in your charters.  Please take a few
> moments
> > to
> > > clue me in this week by responding to this message (private reply to
> > me is
> > > OK) with a description of WG status, including any open WG actions.
> > If
> > > there are outstanding AD actions that you need to have completed,
> I'd
> > like
> > > to be made aware of those as well.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Looking forward to working with you,
> > > -Scott-
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>




More information about the Ipp mailing list