At this point, I don't think we have any business wasting
precious (i.e., market-driven) time by stepping back to the
10000, 25000, 50000, or pick your favorite altitude and
looking at too abstract a big picture. I think what is
solidifying at the moment (meaning what we have agreed to
so far) with the set of documents we have is very close to
meeting the original requirements. And given that this
working group has only been chartered for 4 months, I think
the progress is very good (independent of what the trade rags
might have us believe).
I suggest we go ahead with what we have decided on so far and
proceed from there. I think we're too close to start
reconsidering major components of IPP that we have already
decided on.
We should stay focused and finish the remainder of our work,
including but not limited to the following:
1. A recommendation for secure IPP transactions from the
security sub-group in the form of an internet-draft.
2. Finalize a language and encoding for IPP attributes using
HTTP. We need to reach closure on this very quickly so we
can start prototyping to make sure we have experimental
verification that we've "done the right thing".
3. A short internet draft (possibly informational) on
potential directory schemas for IPP services.
4. Cleaning up any model issues and possibly moving the
attributes section of the model document into a separate
draft, just to make the model document easier to "swallow".
The last few weeks on my schedule have been quite hectic, with
alot of document generation on top of my usual job. I would
have liked to have had more prototyping experience by now but I
appreciate Scott and his colleagues for publishing their
initial experience with encodings for attribute information.
This is just the kind of feedback and analysis we need to
justify our decisions (and to possibly defend our decisions
before the IETF).
Randy
JK Martin wrote:
>
> I read your message three times, but still come away confused
> about exactly what disturbs you regarding recent discussions.
>
> Can you be a bit more explicit, please?
>
> ...jay
>
> ----- Begin Included Message -----
>
> >From ipp-owner@pwg.org Fri Jun 6 19:53 EDT 1997
> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 16:37:55 PDT
> To: ipp@pwg.org
> From: Carl-Uno Manros <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>
> Subject: IPP> ADM - Goals of the IPP Working Group
>
> All,
>
> I know it is a long time back (6 - 8 months) since we discussed the scope
> of the project, but I would encourage everybody who want to debate the SWP
> vs. full IPP issue to go back and read what the charter for this group states.
> It is referenced from the IPP web page, if you do not know where to find it.
>
> In particular, I would like to call your attention to this piece of text
> from our IETF charter:
>
> "The goal of this working group is to develop requirements for Internet
> Printing and to describe a model and semantics for Internet Printing.
>
> The further goal is to define a new application level Internet Printing
> Protocol for the following core functions:
>
> - for a user to find out about a printer's capabilities
> - for a user to submit print jobs to a printer
> - for a user to find out the status of a printer or a print job
> - for a user to cancel a previously submitted job"
>
> This is what we promised to deliver at the beginning of the project, and
> this what we have been working to provide so far. Some of the discussion on
> the DL lately seem to question the scope of the whole project, which I find
> very disturbing.
>
> Carl-Uno
>
> Carl-Uno Manros
> Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
> 701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
> Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
> Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com
>
> ----- End Included Message -----