SM> RE: IPP> Killing off draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2 ?

SM> RE: IPP> Killing off draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2 ?

SM> RE: IPP> Killing off draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2 ?

Zehler, Peter PZehler at crt.xerox.com
Wed Jun 30 13:44:41 EDT 2004


All,
The draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2 should not be killed off.  The Semantic Model
does contain operations and attributes that are defined in the draft
document. 

Carl,
I have talked with Tom and he will help get the document finished off.
Please give him a call to work out the details.

Pete

Peter Zehler 
XEROX 
Xerox Innovation Group 
Email: PZehler at crt.xerox.com 
Voice:    (585) 265-8755 
FAX:      (585) 422-7961 
US Mail: Peter Zehler
              Xerox Corp. 
              800 Phillips Rd. 
              M/S 128-25E 
              Webster NY, 14580-9701 


-----Original Message-----
From: carl at manros.com [mailto:carl at manros.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 12:32 PM
To: Ipp at Pwg. Org
Subject: IPP> Killing off draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2 ?

To the IPP WG Members,

I got this message from our Area Director a few days ago:

----

Carl,

A reminder: I still need to know what's going on with
this document.  If no definitive info is available by Friday
2 July (per my message of Thursday 17 June sent to the WG
mailing list) I'm going to drop it.

-Scott-

----

I have since had contact with Harry Lewis who had orignally planned to do
the final editing for this document (it is now the very last of our IETF IPP
drafts), but it has turned out that Harry will not be able to finish that
task.

In an earlier message I had offered to step in as editor if nobody else
could do it.

However, Harry raised the question whether we really want this document to
go forward on the IETF standards track, suggesting that current work on the
WIMS protocol would be a better solution.

This view also seems to be supported by some other key IPP WG members.

In that ligth it seems that further work on draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2 aka "IPP
management" seems rather fruitless and my current suggestion is to just let
this draft die.

If there is anybody out there who is already working on implementation of
the draft and would be eager to see the document finalized I need your input
rigth away.

I know that this news comes at a time where a number of WG members have
already started their summer vacations, but we have been very close to
killing off this document earlier without any major objections being
expressed.

At one stage it seemed that Easy Software were about to start on the
management part of IPP. I have tried to contact Michael Sweet, the key
developer of CUPS, but he is currently on vacation. Is there anybody else
who knows what the status of CUPS is in this area? As CUPS already contains
various non-standard extentions to IPP, I assume that they can still do the
management part as another private extension if they want to.

Carl-Uno

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


> > > 	Carl,
> > >
> > > 	A reminder: I still need to know what's going on with
> > > this document.  If no definitive info is available by Friday
> > > 2 July (per my message of Thursday 17 June sent to the WG
> > > mailing list) I'm going to drop it.
> > >
> > > 	-Scott-
> > >
> > > 	-----Original Message-----
> > > 	From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
> > > 	Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 12:05 AM
> > > 	To: Scott Hollenbeck
> > > 	Cc: carl at manros.com; Carl Kugler;
> > > hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com; Kurt at OpenLDAP.org
> > > 	Subject: Re: FW: Security Review of draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 	Yea... REAL hard time getting to this. Will try to bump
> > > up the priority over the next few weeks. If I hit the wall...
> > > I'll just have to live with "splat". It would be a shame but
> > > I understand there are limits. Little I can do to alter the
> > > circumstances.
> > > 	----------------------------------------------
> > > 	Harry Lewis
> > > 	IBM STSM
> > > 	Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> > > 	http://www.pwg.org
> > > 	IBM Printing Systems
> > > 	http://www.ibm.com/printers
> > > 	303-924-5337
> > > 	----------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Scott Hollenbeck" <sah at 428cobrajet.net>
> > >
> > > 06/08/2004 04:31 PM
> > >
> > > To
> > > Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>,
> > > Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS cc <Kurt at OpenLDAP.org>,
> > > <carl at manros.com> Subject
> > > FW: Security Review of draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 	Have you guys made any progress in revising the
> > > Security Considerations
> > > 	section of the subject document?  That's all that's
> > > holding this document up
> > > 	from being approved by the IESG, and I want to get it
> > > off of my plate ASAP.
> > >
> > > 	WGs that don't make any progress in finishing documents
> > > tend to get shut
> > > 	down before their time (hint, hint). ;-)  This document
> > > has been sitting
> > > 	like this for *two years*.
> > >
> > > 	-Scott-
> > >
> > > 	-----Original Message-----
> > > 	From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley at vigilsec.com]
> > > 	Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:27 AM
> > > 	To: Kurt at OpenLDAP.org
> > > 	Cc: smb at research.att.com; shollenbeck at verisign.com
> > > 	Subject: Fwd: Security Review of draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2
> > >
> > >
> > > 	Kurt:
> > >
> > > 	On behalf of the Security Directorate, please help
> > > these folks compose a
> > > 	reasonable security considerations section.  The
> > > current one leave much to
> > > 	be desired.
> > >
> > > 	Russ
> > >
> > >
> > > 	>From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck at verisign.com>
> > > 	>To: "'Russ Housley'" <housley at vigilsec.com>,
> > > 	>         "'Steve Bellovin'"
> > > 	>         <smb at research.att.com>
> > > 	>Subject: Security Review of draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2
> > > 	>Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 08:52:46 -0400
> > > 	>Importance: high
> > > 	>
> > > 	>Russ, Steve:
> > > 	>
> > > 	>A long time ago (April 2002) Jeff Schiller entered a
> > > discuss comment for
> > > 	the
> > > 	>subject document.  I found this while working through
> > > the backlog of Ned's
> > > 	>documents.
> > > 	>
> > > 	>The authors need some help in crafting appropriate
> > > security considerations.
> > > 	>Can you point me to someone who might be able to help them?
> > > 	>
> > > 	>-Scott-
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>





More information about the Sm mailing list