PWG> Process

PWG> Process

PWG> Process

McDonald, Ira imcdonald at
Wed Jun 4 15:38:09 EDT 2003

Hi Don,

All very good comments.  I agree with all of your proposed additions
and wording changes.

I'm curious about your comment (18) below.  It makes sense (on one
level), but would mean that until IETF IPP/1.1 (RFC 2910/2911) moves
to Internet Standard status (after going from current Proposed
Standard status to future Draft Standard status), no PWG IPP spec
could ever move higher than PWG Candidate Standard.  Right?

Is this desirable, given that the IETF IPP WG is moribund and will
presumably close permanently in the not too distant future?

- Ira McDonald
  High North Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: don at [mailto:don at]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:10 PM
To: Harry Lewis
Cc: pwg at; thrasher at
Subject: Re: PWG> Process


18) Clause 4.7, Page 10, line 355: add "PWG extensions to non-PWG standards
cannot attain PWG Standard status until the base standard has attained the
rough equivalent of PWG Standard status in the other organization."


 Don Wright                 don at

 Chair,  IEEE SA Standards Board
 Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
 f.wright at / f.wright at

 Director, Alliances & Standards
 Lexmark International
 740 New Circle Rd
 Lexington, Ky 40550
 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)

Harry Lewis <harryl at> on 05/21/2003 07:04:12 PM

Sent by:    owner-pwg at

To:    pwg at
Subject:    PWG> Process

There is really no last call process for the process document ;-). Please
review and prepare to try and close this formally at the Portland plenary.
If you can't make Portland please share you comments ahead of time so they
may be incorporated.
Harry Lewis
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
IBM Printing Systems

More information about the Pwg mailing list