IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - The IPP Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)

IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - The IPP Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)

IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - The IPP Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)

Jay Martin jkm at underscore.com
Tue Aug 15 23:07:00 EDT 2000


Ira,

> Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot and precluding
> clients incapable of using INDP from receiving full-function
> IPP notifications?

Ah, spoken like a true engineer...  ;-)

Let me ask the question another way, then:

    What kinds of IPP notifications are not WELL handled
    by simple plain text email messages?

Please be as specific as you can, expressing the situation
in real-world use cases (and not simply citing chapter-and-verse
from the IPP spec).

--------------------------------------------------------
To everyone else on this list:

Do my comments on this thread sound like plain ranting?
Am I entirely off-base here, or what?  Please speak up,
as I grow increasingly weary of conducting these trials
and tribulations with the same old Usual Suspects.  ;-)

And lest anyone misinterpret my position, let me say that
I wish we could all have neat, cool, real-time binary stuff
flowing between consumer and provider, regardless of the
specific application.  That would be a Good Thing, causing
a wonderful User Experience.

However, the many arrows in this engineer's back has caused
him to become (dare I say?) a Realist with regard to the
business case.

Making a subsystem so gosh darn complex--just to have that
capability--yet totally ignore the real-world business case
is wholey inappropriate and irresponsible.

My $0.02 worth, of course.  Now let's hear from the Silent Majority, ok?

	...jay



More information about the Ipp mailing list