IPP> New PROPOSED STANDARD document for publishing as RFC - I nternet Printing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services <draft- ietf-ipp- ldap-printer-schema-03.txt>

IPP> New PROPOSED STANDARD document for publishing as RFC - I nternet Printing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services <draft- ietf-ipp- ldap-printer-schema-03.txt>

IPP> New PROPOSED STANDARD document for publishing as RFC - I nternet Printing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services <draft- ietf-ipp- ldap-printer-schema-03.txt>

Manros, Carl-Uno B cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com
Wed Aug 30 17:44:20 EDT 2000


Members of the IESG,

There was a bit of earlier confusion about whether this document had been
properly approved by the IPP WG as being recommended for the IETF standards
track.

Hence I have made a second IPP WG Last Call on this document, and it is now
official that the IPP WG wants to see this as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Regards,

Carl-Uno Manros
Chair of IETF IPP WG

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 

-----Original Message-----
From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 1:02 PM
To: iesg at ietf.org
Cc: Carl-Uno Manros; IETF-IPP
Subject: IPP> New PROPOSED STANDARD document for publishing as RFC -
Internet P rinting Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
<draft-ietf-ipp- ldap-printer-schema-03.txt>


Members of the IESG,

A week ago I sent you this document for publication as informational.
However the editors have now had a change of mind on this and we would like
you to instead process the document as PROPOSED STANDARD. Sorry for the
confusion.

	Internet Printing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
      <draft-ietf-ipp-ldap-printer-schema-03.txt>

Carl-Uno Manros
Chair of IETF IPP WG

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 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ira Mcdonald [mailto:imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 11:41 AM
To: flemingp at us.ibm.com; harryl at us.ibm.com
Cc: cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com; imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com;
imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com; imcdonald at sharplabs.com
Subject: Re: IPP LDAP as Information vs Standard RFC ??



Hi Carl-Uno,

The concensus among my co-editors is that we should advance
the LDAP Printer Schema as a Proposed Standard RFC (and
NOT as Informational).  Would your agree to this approach?

Please copy us all on your reply.

Thanks,
- Ira McDonald

-------------------------------------------------------
[our recent thread]

>From flemingp at us.ibm.com  Tue Aug 15 12:50:22 2000
Return-Path: <flemingp at us.ibm.com>
Received: from pasiphae.eastgw.xerox.com (root at pasiphae.eastgw.xerox.com
[13.142.120.23])
	by hydra.sdsp.mc.xerox.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA23242
	for <imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:50:22 -0400
(EDT)
From: flemingp at us.ibm.com
Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com (e4.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.104])
	by pasiphae.eastgw.xerox.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06129
	for <imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:50:11 -0400
(EDT)
Received: from northrelay02.pok.ibm.com (northrelay02.pok.ibm.com
[9.117.200.22])
	by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA96862;
	Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:48:38 -0400
Received: from RCHAS1.RCHLAND.IBM.COM (d27ml001.rchland.ibm.com [9.5.39.28])
	by northrelay02.pok.ibm.com (8.8.8m3/NCO v4.92) with ESMTP id
MAA17986;
	Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:48:44 -0400
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: IPP LDAP as Information vs Standard RFC ??
To: harryl at us.ibm.com
Cc: imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com, imcdonald at sharplabs.com
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 (Intl) 21 March 2000
Message-ID: <OFF2FF885A.879C845A-ON8625693C.005C3175 at RCHLAND.IBM.COM>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:50:13 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on d27ml001/27/M/IBM(Release 5.0.4 |June 8,
2000) at 08/15/2000
 11:50:15 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
hydra.sdsp.mc.xerox.com id MAA23242
Content-Length: 8704


Harry,
I understand.  Who can contact the IPP WG chair and see if they'll pursue
the standards track for this RFC.  Thanks.

Pat Fleming,  Directory and Websphere Technology CEM
Phone:  507-253-7583  (T/L 553-7583)          Dept 45E/Bldg 015-2 / F111
flemingp at us.ibm.com



HARRY LEWIS
08/15/2000 11:25 AM

To:   Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM
cc:   imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com, imcdonald at sharplabs.com
Subject:  Re: IPP LDAP as Information vs Standard RFC ??  (Document link:
      Pat Fleming)

I'm thoroughly frustrated by the IETF process and apparent arbitrary focus
on some parts of network infrastructure vs. others. Presumably, if it's
worth documenting and fosters interoperability, it should be on the
standards track. There are those who consider standards track a requirement
before they implement.

My experience is that industry momentum (or lack thereof) determines
acceptance in the print industry and the RFC number is a "formality"... be
it experimental, informational or standards track.

So my answer is:

1. It SHOULD be Standards Track, but this should not entail any additional
work on our parts
2. If we feel Standards Track would cause additional justification,
consternation or whatever... it's not worth it.

Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems


 

                    Pat Fleming

                                         To:     Harry
Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, imcdonald at sharplabs.com,           
                    08/14/2000           imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com

                    02:42 PM             cc:

                                         Subject:     IPP LDAP as
Information vs Standard RFC ??                   
 




Harry and Ira,
I asked Bob and Lee for feed back on our IPP LDAP I-D being submitted as an
'information' vs 'standard' RFC.  I'm neutral on this right now.  What do
you two think about this?  Should we just leave it as an information rfc?

Pat Fleming,  Directory and Websphere Technology CEM
Phone:  507-253-7583  (T/L 553-7583)          Dept 45E/Bldg 015-2 / F111
flemingp at us.ibm.com
---------------------- Forwarded by Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM on 08/14/2000
03:37 PM ---------------------------

Lee Rafalow
08/11/2000 02:14 PM

To:   Robert Moore/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
cc:   Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM at IBMUS
From: Lee Rafalow/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
Subject:  Re: New INFORMATIONAL document for publishing as RFC - Internet
      Print    ing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
      <draft-ietf-ipp-ldap    -printer-schema-03.txt>  (Document link: Pat
      Fleming)

I agree with Bob's assessment.  One other consideration is that the extra
cachet of standards-track generally means that companies will implement it
(because they've agreed to it) whereas informational means companies may or
may not, because they haven't agreed, they've just been informed.

Lee M. Rafalow
Voice: 1-919-254-4455 (8-444-4455); Fax: 1-919-254-6243 (8-444-6243)
IBM Internet Technology Management
IBM Corporation
P.O. Box 12195, BRQA/502
RTP, NC 27709 USA
Alternate email: rafalow at raleigh.ibm.com
Intranet: http://rafalow.raleigh.ibm.com/
Home email: rafalow at mindspring.com


Robert Moore
08/11/2000 01:46 PM

To:   Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM at IBMUS
cc:   Lee Rafalow/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
From: Robert Moore/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
Subject:  Re: New INFORMATIONAL document for publishing as RFC - Internet
      Print    ing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
      <draft-ietf-ipp-ldap    -printer-schema-03.txt>  (Document link: Lee
      Rafalow)

Pat,

I'll offer several comments.  Maybe Lee can offer some others.

   An Informational RFC is much more like a standards-track RFC than it is
   like an Internet-Draft.  The key similarity is that all RFCs are
   permanent documents, archived forever and never changed once they're
   published (although they can be made obsolete by a subsequent RFC).
   Full Internet Standards have standard (STD) numbers, but almost everyone
   refers to them by their RFC numbers instead.  And in this regard an
   Informational RFC is on exactly the same footing as a standard RFC --
   they both have 4-digit RFC numbers that come from the same number space,
   and their numbers will forever refer to exactly those documents.
   It's a cliche in IETF circles to grumble that "marketing" completely
   erases the distinction between an Informational RFC and a standard (or a
   standards-track RFC).  When a vendor says that a product "supports RFC
   2999", customers never ask (and the vendor never volunteers) whether
   this is a standard / standards-track RFC or just an Informational one.

So really it wouldn't particularly hurt you if this document went the path
of an Informational RFC.  That said, though, I don't agree with your
chair's assessment that this is the path it *should* follow.  There aren't
too many LDAP schemas to compare it with, but there are a lot of SNMP MIBs
that have been defined in the IETF.  Almost all of these have taken the
standards track, rather than being published as informational.  So I would
think that your LDAP schema would be a standards-track document as well.
One question that might be relevant here is whether the document is a "work
product" of the IPP WG, rather than a document that was produced by a set
of individuals, and then presented to the WG for information.  The fact
that the filename starts draft-ietf-ipp-... isn't conclusive -- either type
of document could have this form of filename.  And the WG charter isn't
helpful either, since the last milestone listed there is dated August 1997!

My bottom line for you is this:  you have a "right" for this document to be
a standards-track RFC, but the added benefit of this status over an
Informational RFC isn't great enough to justify spending very much time
fighting for this right.


Regards,
Bob

Bob Moore
IBM Networking Software
+1-919-254-4436
remoore at us.ibm.com



Pat Fleming
08/10/2000 09:48 PM

To:   Robert Moore/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
cc:
From: Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM at IBMUS
Subject:  New INFORMATIONAL document for publishing as RFC - Internet Print
      ing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
      <draft-ietf-ipp-ldap    -printer-schema-03.txt>


Robert,
I needs some help/advice here.  The IPP chair just sent out this note
concerning the Internet Draft we have been developing.  Here he suggests
that it become an Informational RFC.  In earlier discussions with you and
Lee, I remember some concerns about this becoming 'only' an informational
draft (which are subject to change) and not an RFC standard.  I believe Ira
and myself were expecting this to  become an internet standard.  Is an
informational draft the 'first' step to becoming a standard RFC?  Or do we
want to redirect the positioning of this I-D?

Pat Fleming,  Directory and Websphere Technology CEM
Phone:  507-253-7583  (T/L 553-7583)          Dept 45E/Bldg 015-2 / F111
flemingp at us.ibm.com
---------------------- Forwarded by Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM on 08/10/2000
02:14 PM ---------------------------

"Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com> on 08/10/2000 01:39:46 PM

To:   iesg at ietf.org
cc:   Carl-Uno Manros <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com>, Ned Freed
      <Ned.Freed at innosoft.com>, Patrik Fältström <paf at cisco.com>, Pat
      Fleming/Rochester/IBM at IBMUS
Subject:  New INFORMATIONAL document for publishing as RFC - Internet Print
      ing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
      <draft-ietf-ipp-ldap    -printer-schema-03.txt>




Members of the IESG,

The IETF IPP WG has finished the work on the following document, which has
passed through the IPP WG Last Call.
The document has been also been reviewed by the LDAP Extensions WG, and is
aligned with a corresponding schema for the Service Location Protocol.

     Internet Printing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
      <draft-ietf-ipp-ldap-printer-schema-03.txt>

My understanding is that this kind of document is typically published as an
INFORMATIONAL RFC.
The schema also needs to be registered with the IANA.

Regards,

Carl-Uno Manros
Chair of the IETF IPP WG

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