If not, we do have a fallback to just the requirements doc, but we do
need to review that as well. These short deadlines have FORCED us
(especially me) to focus more than 100% of my time on this which I think
is good. If we miss this chance, we might just let it slide out too far.
Scott
>>> Carl-Uno Manros <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com> 11/19/96 12:15pm
>>>
At 11:34 PM 11/18/96 PST, you wrote:
>The section on IPP Operations Using HTTP and how to encode IPP
>Operations is brand new, it just got thrown in. Roger did a good job of
>pulling it together, but it probably doesn't fit very well in the doc where it
>is and it hasn't been reviewe at all.
>
>Scott A. Isaacson
Scott,
do you expect that we can have a coherent version by the end of the
week to
send to the IETF? If not, I suggest that we limit ourselves to sending the
Requirements documents at this stage and wait with sending the major
document until after the IETF meeting in December.
Carl-Uno
Carl-Uno Manros
Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd.
M/S: ESAE-231
El Segundo, CA 90245, USA
E-mail: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com