PWG> Process

PWG> Process

PWG> Process

Ron.Bergman at hitachi-ps.us Ron.Bergman at hitachi-ps.us
Thu Jun 5 18:14:35 EDT 2003


Ira,

It seems to me that providing the printing community with an
accurate indication of the maturity of the standards would be
extremely helpful.  The PWG is the author of these standards
and the only organization that can accurately access the
current level of maturity.  The IETF can certainly provide
input for some issues, but it is still up to the PWG to
determine the interoperability and acceptance of all IPP
functions.

I believe we have only two reasonable choices:

1. Define a PWG maturity level for the IETF documents.

2. Ignore maturity altogether and let the market rule.

	Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:54 AM
To: 'Ron.Bergman at hitachi-ps.us'; McDonald, Ira; don at lexmark.com
Cc: harryl at us.ibm.com; pwg at pwg.org; thrasher at lexmark.com
Subject: RE: PWG> Process


Hi Ron,

I'm not sure how we practically apply your suggestion, but...

The standards status of all IETF RFCs is regularly published
in the RFC xx00 series "Internet Official Protocol Standards",
most recently RFC 3300/STD 1 (November 2002).  The very newest
RFCs have their standards status listed in the RFC Index at:

	ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc-index.txt

I don't think it's helpful for the PWG to "relabel" the
maturity level of IETF RFCs.  I think the PWG can either:

(a) Ask the IETF to transfer the copyright to PWG and allow
    republication of the entire IPP/1.1 and extensions set
    of RFCs (many);
<or>
(b) Work to advance the IPP RFCs within the IETF Process;
<or>
(c) Do nothing and leave the IPP RFCs in long-term limbo.

I don't much like alternative (c).

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
  High North Inc


-----Original Message-----
From: Ron.Bergman at hitachi-ps.us [mailto:Ron.Bergman at hitachi-ps.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:09 PM
To: imcdonald at sharplabs.com; don at lexmark.com
Cc: harryl at us.ibm.com; pwg at pwg.org; thrasher at lexmark.com
Subject: RE: PWG> Process


Ira and Don,

I believe it is time for the PWG to assign unique maturity
levels to IETF IPP standards.  The IETF is in no position to
judge the level of an IPP standard and certainly does not
have the manpower or interest to do so.  The PWG needs to
take full ownership of these standards and provide an
official position as to their maturity level.

I am not trying to berate the IETF by proposing this solution.
Printing standards are not within the main focus of the IETF
and they have published the documents primarily for the
benefit of the internet community.  Their focus during the
standards review was concentrated towards network issues 
only.  If the IETF agrees it is a standards track document,
the PWG should then decide upon its 'real' maturity.

Note also that the IETF RFCs do not indicate the maturity
directly.  You must go to a different document (I believe
this is only on line) to determine the current level of
maturity.

	Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 8:30 AM
To: 'don at lexmark.com'; McDonald, Ira
Cc: Harry Lewis; pwg at pwg.org; thrasher at lexmark.com
Subject: RE: PWG> Process


Hi Don,

I see your point.  And agree with it.  Standards shouldn't
have higher status than their normative dependencies.

But I think that IPP is maybe a "special case".  The PWG has
(by an apparent strong concensus) simply abandoned submitting
printing industry standards to the IETF.  Most of all, this
is because a string of IETF Applications Area Directors have
had no interest in IPP, Printer MIB, etc.

The Printer MIB v2 has finally been adopted because it was
(lucky enough to be) a MIB - so Bert Wijnen and the very
competent IETF Ops and Mgmt Area "MIB experts" took over 
and helped us move it forward.

Unfortunately, IPP remains stuck in IETF Applications Area.

Of course, we could try to recharter the IETF IPP WG with
the stated purpose of advancing to Draft Standard (there
is precedent for such a recharter).  But I don't think 
that the IETF is at all likely to grant the new charter.

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
  High North Inc

PS - It really pains me to be arguing on the "wrong" side
of this issue.  But I believe that IPP is an important
unifying standard in the printing industry.


-----Original Message-----
From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:16 AM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: Harry Lewis; pwg at pwg.org; thrasher at lexmark.com
Subject: RE: PWG> Process



Ira:

If it is truly the case the IPP never advances beyond "Proposed" why should
the extensions advance beyond "Candidate"?  If the base upon which the PWG
extensions are built has not been proven to be equivalent to a PWG Standard
(for whatever reason) how can the extension be any better?  If your house
is built to the highest possible standards to resist a tornado but it is
built on a foundation of jello, would you call it a tornado resistant
house?

While I'm not excited by the idea, we could define some special exception
process by which this rule could be suspended.  Only some kind of very high
bar would be appropriate... 75% approval of the membership?  80%?  100%?

**********************************************
 Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com

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

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





"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com> on 06/05/2003 11:06:53 AM

To:    "'don at lexmark.com'" <don at lexmark.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
       <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>
cc:    Harry Lewis <harryl at us.ibm.com>, pwg at pwg.org, thrasher at lexmark.com
Subject:    RE: PWG> Process


Hi Don,

OK, I accept your suggestion that PWG Standard is "roughly"
equivalent to IETF Draft Standard (in requirements to be met).

But IETF IPP/1.1 (RFC 2910/2911) will most likely _never_
advance from IETF Proposed Standard to IETF Draft Standard,
which would mean that no IEEE/ISTO PWG spec for IPP extensions
can ever advance beyond PWG Candidate Standard.

The point I'm concerned about is standards in OTHER bodies
that are never going to advance shouldn't hold back PWG
standards, I think.

Comments?

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
  High North Inc

PS - Note that for IPP/1.1 (RFC 2910/2911) to advance to
IETF Draft Standard status, the IETF IPP WG would have to
be rechartered and a set of thorough (EVERY feature) tests
of interoperability would have to be performed, written up,
and submitted to the IETF.  Wildly unlikely...

-----Original Message-----
From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:44 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'don at lexmark.com'; Harry Lewis; pwg at pwg.org; thrasher at lexmark.com
Subject: RE: PWG> Process



Ira:

I used the word "roughly" with intent.

The PWG should decide whether PWG Standard is "roughly" equivalent to IETF
Draft Standard or to IETF Internet Standard.

Looking at the requirements, I believe IETF Draft Standard is the
equivalent of PWG Standard.

**********************************************
 Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com

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

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




"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com> on 06/04/2003 03:38:09 PM

To:    "'don at lexmark.com'" <don at lexmark.com>, Harry Lewis
       <harryl at us.ibm.com>
cc:    pwg at pwg.org, thrasher at lexmark.com
Subject:    RE: PWG> Process


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?

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
  High North Inc


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

<...snip...>

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."

<...snip...>

**********************************************
 Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com

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

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





Harry Lewis <harryl at us.ibm.com>@pwg.org on 05/21/2003 07:04:12 PM

Sent by:    owner-pwg at pwg.org


To:    pwg at pwg.org
cc:
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.
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030414.pdf
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
 303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------














More information about the Pwg mailing list