PWG> Process

PWG> Process

PWG> Process

McDonald, Ira imcdonald at sharplabs.com
Thu Jun 5 21:17:51 EDT 2003


Hi,

Remember - the IETF _owns_ the copyright on IPP/1.1.

If the PWG writes standards that normatively reference IPP/1.1,
then those PWG standards MUST normatively reference the IETF's
RFC 2910/2911.

It's out of the question for the PWG to infringe the IETF's
current IPP/1.1 copyright.

So shall we:

(1) Request copyright transfer for all IPP specs from IETF;
    <or>
(2) Try to progress the various IPP specs (quite a few) in
    the IETF Process - which will be VERY slow

Cheers,
- Ira


-----Original Message-----
From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner at NetSilicon.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:24 PM
To: Ron.Bergman at hitachi-ps.us; imcdonald at sharplabs.com;
Ron.Bergman at hitachi-ps.us; don at lexmark.com
Cc: harryl at us.ibm.com; pwg at pwg.org; thrasher at lexmark.com
Subject: RE: PWG> Process


If I am add by 2 cents...
 
Although I understand and agree with the apparent intent of Don' s
suggestion Process Document addition that started this thread, I suggest
that a statement in the process document that requires a "roughly
equivalent" level, effectively to be subjectivly determined, is meaningless
on one side and a potential cause of future arguments on the other. A
mapping of what is considered equivalent levels to applicable standards
organizations would be necessary.
 
Although I agree that  IPP may be a special case, the intent of the
provision is, to paraphrase Don, to make sure that a PWG standard is based
on a stable foundation. Therefore, I also agree with Ira that doing nothing
with the IPP RFC's is undesirable. 
Carl-Uno suggests that they can be advanced in the IETF. But can we tolerate
the time delays? We had previously considered the  idea of attempting the
transfer of these documents from the IETF. Was there any action done on
that?
 
So there does not appear to be a good solution. Which is the least bad?
Assuning that that is the liklehood of the RFC's being reclassified historic
is small, the PWG defining its  maturity level terms equivalent to the IETF
terms seems least painful. If, in the future, we believe that a IETF
document, at whatever level teh IETH defines it, is not sufficiently mature
for our purposes, we would simply not reference it.
 
Bill Wagner
 
 
 
 
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Ron.Bergman at hitachi-ps.us [mailto:Ron.Bergman at hitachi-ps.us] 
	Sent: Thu 6/5/2003 6:14 PM 
	To: imcdonald at sharplabs.com; Ron.Bergman at hitachi-ps.us;
don at lexmark.com 
	Cc: harryl at us.ibm.com; pwg at pwg.org; thrasher at lexmark.com 
	Subject: RE: PWG> Process
	
	

	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