IPP> FW:[Erik G's answer about SLP templates as RFCs]

IPP> FW:[Erik G's answer about SLP templates as RFCs]

IPP> FW:[Erik G's answer about SLP templates as RFCs]

McDonald, Ira imcdonald at sharplabs.com
Tue Feb 15 12:37:14 EST 2000

-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira 
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 9:35 AM
To: 'Erik Guttman'; McDonald, Ira
Subject: RE: HELP - Did you get SLP 'printer:' template??

Hi Erik,

Thanks - excellent answers.  Since LDAPEXT WG is (apparently)
generally publishing new LDAP schemas (like Ryan Moats work
on the DMTF CIM to LDAP schemas), when we get done translating
the SLP 'printer:' service template to an equivalent LDAP
schema, we think we need to put it on the Informational RFC

I understand just what you mean about how hard it is to get
an RFC published.  IPP/1.1 (standards track update to old
experimental IPP/1.0) has been waiting around with the 
IETF Apps ADs since June 1999 with no forward motion.
At this rate, we'll finish IPP/1.2 under the newly 
chartered IPPEXT WG before IPP/1.1 gets published.

Again, thanks for your thorough answers.

- Ira McDonald

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Guttman [mailto:Erik.Guttman at germany.sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 12:29 AM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'Erik Guttman'
Subject: RE: HELP - Did you get SLP 'printer:' template??

> Hi Erik,
> Thanks very much for your instant reply (and your previous
> instant doing the right thing).
> New LDAP schemas, DHCP options, and URL schemes are being
> published as Informational RFCs.  
> Should we be publishing SLP templates as Informational RFCs?
> Best Regards,
> - Ira McDonald


You might want to publish it as an informational RFC, but we
don't encourage that.  The whole idea of the service template
registry was to make it *much* easier to publish them than to
publish an RFC.  Once IANA gets off its posterior, I will be
able to just review a template for grammatical adherence to
RFC 2609 and do a little reformatting.  I could theoretically
have 1-2 week turn around on templates.

Another thing is that RFCs are hard to revise.  I know you
could always publish a new version of an old document, but in
practice IETF documents are hardly ever updated.  I know how
hard a 'version 2' exercise can be from SLPv2.  Templates should
be very easy to update.

The one thing which is kind of a drag is that internet drafts
have all sorts of information which don't easily fit into a
template.  So what I do is reformat the draft (without the
draft header and page breaks) into the template as comments.
This captures all technical content but is somehow not as
satisfying as a RFC.  

Please note that once a document is registered with IANA it
will not be removed.  Thus, if there are new revisions of
the service template


etcetra, they'd all still be on-line.  Thus, one could cite
the old template (or use it) without worrying that it would
be subsequently modified.


More information about the Ipp mailing list