PWG> Separation of PWG and IETF activities

PWG> Separation of PWG and IETF activities

PWG> Separation of PWG and IETF activities

Carl-Uno Manros cmanros at
Wed May 28 13:13:40 EDT 1997

At 09:06 AM 5/28/97 PDT, don at wrote:
>From:     Don Wright @ LEXMARK at LEXMTA
>Date:     05/28/97 12:06:42 PM
>Subject:  Separation of PWG and IETF activities
>Through the course of the last few weeks, there have been
>a number of cases where the activities of the PWG and the
>IETF have been confused.  In order to clearly separate the
>two, I think the following needs to happen:
>1) We need to add a disclaimer to the PWG home page clearly
>   indicating:
>    The contents of these WEB pages reflect work done by
>    the people of the Printer Working Group which may or
>    may not be submitted to the IETF, IEEE or other standards
>    organizations.  Official IETF, IEEE, or other standards
>    organization documents, if available, will be found on
>    their WEB page, FTP server or other service.

CBM> No problem with this, but we also need to think about the other pages,
CBM> as many go directly to: and never see the PWG 
CBM> opening page. We already have a statement of this nature on the IPP page.
CBM> We can improve the text if you are not happy with it. I am also planning
CBM> to update our FAQ document and would put in some further clarification
CBM> about PWG vs. IETF activities in there.

>2) We need to clearly separate PWG administrative e-mail from
>   IETF working groups technical and administrative e-mail.
>   Therefore, according to my understanding, since meetings
>   of the PWG are not "official" IETF activities, all future
>   PWG meeting notices will ONLY be sent to the PWG mailing
>   list and not to the PMP, JMP, or IPP lists.  In contrast,
>   the IEEE does sanction the regular meetings of a working
>   group.  Since the 1394 printing effort is a study group
>   and hopefully soon an official working group, a more
>   liberal policy will be applied to the P1394 mailing list.

CBM> I do not like this proposal much. It means that I will need to keep 
CBM> reading the PWG list in parallell to the IPP list (and will have  
CBM> to filter out a lot of non-IPP stuff in the process.  We would also
CBM> have the same problem with the FTP server.
CBM> I have started including "PWG" in the Agenda and report headings to
CBM> make sure that any newcomer understands that it is not IETF.

>   I am not sure how to handle the notices of meeting minutes
>   but my first pass at it says that PWG meeting minutes
>   for IPP, JMP and PMP should not be posted or acknowledged
>   on these lists.  (If a meeting "didn't happen" how can
>   minutes exist?)  Am I going too far?

CBM> As for minutes, there is absolutely no problem with distributing 
CBM> these over lists like the IPP, as long as they are clearly marked 
CBM> as "PWG".  Other WGs distribute meeting reports from ITU, ISO etc.


All in all I am not too happy in changing things at this stage. I think we
have already had our battles with the IETF and just now we seem to have 
reached a pieceful level which also works for the people involved in the 
project.  Splitting things up would make things more complicated for the
people trying to do technical work vs. caring about politics. If the IETF 
people should start complaining again, I suppose we might need to follow
your proposal..

My 2 cents.


Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros at

More information about the Pwg mailing list