IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

Carl-Uno Manros carl at manros.com
Wed Jun 21 10:43:39 EDT 2000


Peter,

As we all know, votes in IPP meetings can only be seen as recommendations to
the group.

We need to get the hopefully final draft version of the INDP method out, and
then finally decide the matter on the IPP mailing list.

Carl-Uno


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of Zehler,
> Peter
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 5:25 AM
> To: henrik.holst at i-data.com; ipp at pwg.org; peter.ultved at i-data.com
> Subject: RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
>
>
> Henrik,
>
> From the May PWG/IPP meeting minutes:
> "4.6 Mandatory Notification Method?
>
> After further discussion about a possible mandatory notification
>
> method, the group agreed that the INDP Notification method should
>
> become mandatory."
>
> As for going through firewalls, the Bake-Off (hopefully) will test that
> specifically.  Firewalls can be configured to allow specific traffic to
> pass.  Some filter only on a port number and others examine content.   I
> intend to have two firewall vendors at the Bake-Off with products that are
> able to filter at least on the port number.  I hope at least one will also
> be able to examine the MIME type.
>
> Pete
> 				Peter Zehler
> 				XEROX
> 				Xerox Architecture Center
> 				Email: Peter.Zehler at usa.xerox.com
> 				Voice:    (716) 265-8755
> 				FAX:      (716) 265-8792
> 				US Mail: Peter Zehler
> 				        Xerox Corp.
> 				        800 Phillips Rd.
> 				        M/S 139-05A
> 				        Webster NY, 14580-9701
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: henrik.holst at i-data.com [mailto:henrik.holst at i-data.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 3:53 AM
> To: ipp at pwg.org; peter.ultved at i-data.com
> Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
>
>
>
> Well it was my understanding that we didn't agree on a mandatory method.
> And the INDP method
> won't go through a firewall, so if you are searching for a
> mandatory method
> I would say MAILTO.
>
> Henrik
>
>
>
>
>
> "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler at usa.xerox.com>@pwg.org on
> 20-06-2000 17:43:51
>
> Sent by:  owner-ipp at pwg.org
>
>
> To:   "IPP Discussion List (E-mail)" <IPP at pwg.org>
> cc:
>
> Subject:  IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
>
>
> All,
>
> I am working the content planning for the IPP Bake-Off.  I want to be sure
> that there is PWG wide agreement on the notification issue.
>
> It is my understanding that INDP is the mandated IPP notification method.
> There were some minor updates that have been agreed to and we are awaiting
> the final version of the document for PWG last call.  The minor
> changes are
> documented in the meeting minutes from May meeting of the PWG.    This
> upcoming INDP document will be the document that the notification section
> of
> the Bake-Off will use as a base.
>
> Is this correct or did I misunderstand?
>
> Pete
>
>                     Peter Zehler
>                     XEROX
>                     Xerox Architecture Center
>                     Email: Peter.Zehler at usa.xerox.com
>                     Voice:    (716) 265-8755
>                     FAX:      (716) 265-8792
>                     US Mail: Peter Zehler
>                             Xerox Corp.
>                             800 Phillips Rd.
>                             M/S 139-05A
>                             Webster NY, 14580-9701
>
>
>
>
>




More information about the Ipp mailing list