Sorry, if I realized there were limitations on the request for comments...
>Could I please ask that we continue to provide comments on the draft, as
they
>relate to making the draft ready for publication. This means any
innapropriate
>use of XML, typos and the like.
...I wouldn't have mentioned adding a 'print-to' URL along with the FAX
number. I guess I'm still learning about the IETF process.
The request to review indicated that the draft had been modified,
partially, to emphasize information exchange...
>application of the phone book as standard format for exchanging
>information between providers and the roaming consortium as well
>as between the roaming consortium and the users.
This exchange is primarily for the purpose of establishing a channel,
connection or "account" between the roaming client and the consortium of
ISP providers but in the context of "support" provides an actual 'phone
book' of contact information including postal, web page URL, phone, fax and
more. The recommendation to add IPP to the OPTIONAL contact information for
obtaining support, does not seem inappropriate and adds little to the
kitchen sink that is already there.
Maybe the term "phonebook" misrepresents the main purpose of this draft.
Most "reaction" to my suggestion correctly points out that IPP has little
(in fact, nothing) to do with the primary focus of the submission (finding
the Internet Point of Presence, determining the set-up criteria and getting
the service up and running). But in terms of the "contact information" as
it pertains to "support" and particularly as it becomes analogous to
providing a FAX number... I think the suggestion should be viewed less as
an "issue" and more at face value.
Extensibility was mentioned as one reason the draft was revised to use XML.
No one will disagree that FAX has a longer history than IPP. If the roamops
group adopts a "wait and see" consensus regarding the use of 'print-to'
URLs in addition to FAX, that's OK. I'd rather see the disposition... "we
have an extensible phone book which can be updated as the market
demonstrates wider adoption of IPP for information exchange" than
"aarghh...Pandora's box, the kitchen sink..." I don't know how easy or
likely such an update is, however, and maintain that it would be efficient
to provide the information now.
Harry Lewis
|------------------------+------------------------>
| | pcalhoun |
| | |
| | 11/01/99 07:57 AM |
| | Please respond to |
| | "pcalhoun at eng.sun.com|
| | " |
| | |
|------------------------+------------------------>
>------------------------|
| |
| To: |
| Randy Bush |
| <randy at psg.com> |
| cc: |
| Bernard Aboba |
| <aboba at internaut.com>|
| , |
| roamops at tdmx.rutgers.|
| edu |
| Subject: |
| Re: |
| draft-ietf-roamops-ph|
| onebook-xml-02.txt |
>------------------------|
(Embedded image moved to file: pic15623.pcx)
I have been quietly following this thread, and I must admit that I am a
little
disturbed by the recent activity to include everything under the Sun into
the phone book.
Initially, the phone book was supposed to contain a list of ISPs one could
contact for service. It was decided that the phone book should include some
contact information, should the user require some technical support.
I am not against IPP, IP over Fax or any other such service, but I really
do
not see how this fits in. Next thing you'll know, we are going to end up
with
Instant Messaging lists, and other really neat, but not quite needed at the
moment.
Could I please ask that we continue to provide comments on the draft, as
they
relate to making the draft ready for publication. This means any
innapropriate
use of XML, typos and the like.
I would REALLY like to see this draft go out, and the work group finally
shut
down.
PatC
> [ ad hat on, and excuse my using your message as a soapbox ]
>> as roamops is not meeting in dc, i will bring up what might be more
easily
> discussed face to face. note that a number of iesg members are reading
this
> list, and are pondering the issue.
>> > To avoid having the phone book become a kitchen sink
>> i am trying to understand if there are clear and necessary *operational*
> requirements for additional info other than that necessary for a roamer
to
> select and call a pop.
>> if this is a more general phonebook proposal then why is it in this wg as
> opposed to being spun off to a seperate wg that would look carefully into
> the requirements for such a protocol? such a wg would probably be in the
> aps area, since this is becoming the sort of thing for which ops does not
> bring enough to the table.
>> if this wg focuses on the clear and simple needs which we know how to
solve
> in a direct manner, then we should be able to finish this quickly and get
on
> with life. if not, then life will get on with us.
>> randy
(Embedded image moved to file: pic30718.pcx)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic15623.pcx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 128 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.pwg.org/archives/ifx/attachments/19991108/26d2302e/pic15623-0001.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic30718.pcx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1873 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.pwg.org/archives/ifx/attachments/19991108/26d2302e/pic30718-0001.obj