IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery methodby July 7

IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery methodby July 7

IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery methodby July 7

Carl-Uno Manros carl at manros.com
Thu Jun 29 10:34:02 EDT 2000


Ira,

On 2): I have assumed that we still want to finish all four delivery specs,
but the priority order will be determined by the answer to 1)

On 3): As I stated before, this more a commercial decision on what peole
plan to actually implement, but hopefully has some relationship to 1) and
2).

Let's try to do 1) first and see where that takes us.

I did tell you this was going to be fun....

Carl-Uno

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of McDonald,
> Ira
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 8:27 PM
> To: 'Hugo Parra'; ipp at pwg.org
> Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery
> methodby July 7
>
>
> Hi Hugo and Carl-Uno,
>
> Boy I can feel this quicksand moving already...
>
> So there are at least three separate things we really need to
> rank/decide:
>
> 1)  [Carl-Uno's current polling objective]
>     IPP/1.x Notifications - which method(s) are required for
>     all implementations, so that the IESG can have a conformance
>     testing report when we want to move IPP (and _all_ of its
>     IETF spec options) to IETF Draft Standard status next year?
>
> 2)  IETF specs - which method(s) will we finish up and issue?
>     - the spec editors want to know this
>
> 3)  Bakeoff - which method(s) will be tested in October?
>     - Pete Zehler wants to know this and so does Paul Moore
>
> Comments?
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira McDonald
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Parra [mailto:HPARRA at novell.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 7:59 PM
> To: ipp at pwg.org
> Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery
> methodby July 7
>
>
> I see *your* point.  Except my vote was going to be ...
>
>    a) over email - 1
>    b) over IPP
>    c) over INDP - 1
>    d) over SNMP
>    e) don't mandate any - 2
>
> But, if that's not an option then I'll settle for ...
>
>    a) over email - 0 (strongly recommend)
>    b) over IPP - 0
>    c) over INDP - 0 (strongly recommend)
>    d) over SNMP - 0
>
> -Hugo
>
> >>> "Carl-Uno Manros" <carl at manros.com> 06/28/00 08:28PM >>>
> Hugo,
>
> I see your point, but I don't want to change the rules again.
> What I intend
> to do is to count the 0000-ids as a separate category; if we end up having
> more people in that group than in the one that has allocated
> their 4 points,
> we have a clear answer. Nobody's voice will go unheard...
>
> Carl-Uno
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hugo Parra [mailto:HPARRA at novell.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 7:15 PM
> > To: cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com; carl at manros.com; pmoore at peerless.com
> > Cc: ipp at pwg.org
> > Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery
> > methodby July 7
> >
> >
> > Shouldn't the options be ...
> >
> >   a) over email
> >   b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> >   c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> > direction)
> >   d) over SNMP
> >   e) don't mandate any
> >
> > Otherwise those who give each entry a weight of zero, basically
> > through away their vote.
> >
> > -Hugo
> >
> > >>> "Carl-Uno Manros" <carl at manros.com> 06/28/00 07:52PM >>>
> > Oh no, I managed to not be completely clear after all.
> >
> > The weighting is for the IETF standards texts.
> >
> > What gets tested in the bake-off is the decision of the PWG,
> > which hosts the
> > bake-off event, and has nothing to do with this exercise.
> >
> > Carl-Uno
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of
> > > pmoore at peerless.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 5:47 PM
> > > To: Manros, Carl-Uno B
> > > Cc: IETF-IPP
> > > Subject: Re: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification
> delivery method
> > > by July 7
> > >
> > >
> > > If this is a vote for making things mandatory :-
> > >
> > > 0 a) over email
> > > 0 b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> > > 0 c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> > > direction)
> > > 0 d) over SNMP
> > >
> > > I dont think mandating is useful
> > >
> > > If this is a vote for 'what specs do we need to agree and
> bakeoff ASAP'
> > >
> > > 2 a) over email
> > > 0 b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> > > 2 c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> > > direction)
> > > 0 d) over SNMP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com> on 06/28/2000
> > 05:17:16 PM
> > >
> > > To:   IETF-IPP <ipp at pwg.org>
> > > cc:    (bcc: Paul Moore/AUCO/US)
> > >
> > > Subject:  IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery
> > > method by July 7
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > The IETF does not do voting, but we can ask people to allocate
> > weights to
> > > their favorite method. From the result I hope to get a picture of
> > > whether we
> > > have a clear "rough consensus" favorite, or if we should just
> > avoid trying
> > > to make any particular notification delivery method the "required" or
> > > "mandated" one.
> > >
> > > So let the weightings begin!
> > >
> > > Here are the rules:
> > >
> > > 1) We have 4 candidate notification delivery methods, briefly
> > > described as:
> > >
> > >  a) over email
> > >  b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> > >  c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> > direction)
> > >  d) over SNMP
> > >
> > > 2) You have a total of maximum 4 weight points to allocate
> between the 4
> > > methods above.
> > >
> > >  a) You can put all your 4 points on one favorite and leave the
> > > other three
> > > with 0 each. (the 'all eggs in one basket' option)
> > >  b) If you don't really mind which method, you can give 1 point
> > to each of
> > > the methods. (the 'chicken' option)
> > >  c) You can allocate your 4 points somewhere between the two
> > extreme cases
> > > above. (the 'diplomatic' options)
> > >  d) If you don't want to make ANY of the methods "required" or
> > "mandated",
> > > put a 0 for ALL four methods! (the 'don't even try it' option)
> > >
> > > If you still haven't understood the rules, please read the above
> > > text 3 more
> > > times, before you make a fool of yourself....., or of me for not
> > > being clear
> > > enough ;-{
> > >
> > > So please collect your wits and send your weights to the IPP
> DL no later
> > > than next Friday July 7!
> > >
> > > Have fun.... and remember that if you do not participate you
> cannot win!
> > >
> > > Carl-Uno
> > >
> > > Carl-Uno Manros
> > > Principal Engineer - Xerox Architecture Center - 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 at cp10.es.xerox.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>




More information about the Ipp mailing list