Semantic Model Mail Archive: SM> RE: IPP> Killing off dra

Semantic Model Mail Archive: SM> RE: IPP> Killing off dra

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

From: Zehler, Peter (PZehler@crt.xerox.com)
Date: Wed Jun 30 2004 - 13:44:41 EDT

  • Next message: Zehler, Peter: "SM> RE: IPP> Killing off draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2 ?"

    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@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@manros.com [mailto:carl@manros.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 12:32 PM
    To: Ipp@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@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@us.ibm.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 12:05 AM > > > To: Scott Hollenbeck > > > Cc: carl@manros.com; Carl Kugler; > > > hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com; Kurt@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@428cobrajet.net> > > > > > > 06/08/2004 04:31 PM > > > > > > To > > > Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>, > > > Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS cc <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>, > > > <carl@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@vigilsec.com] > > > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:27 AM > > > To: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org > > > Cc: smb@research.att.com; shollenbeck@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@verisign.com> > > > >To: "'Russ Housley'" <housley@vigilsec.com>, > > > > "'Steve Bellovin'" > > > > <smb@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- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 13:50:13 EDT