Carl-Uno,
I don't deny that it's our own fault that these specifications have not
been completed. (Well, the length of time it takes to get stuff through
IETF doesn't help any!)
However, I don't believe that it's accurate to say that there is no
interest in ever finishing them. Micheal has expressed that CUPS will
have some support for notifications, and IPPFax was interested in
requiring it.
At this point in time, I don't have the bandwidth to take on anymore
work and I really don't know anyone who does. Which is why I was
curious about reclaiming rights. Someone was mentioning that it may be
possible for the authors to reclaim the rights and then submit the specs
to the PWG, at which point we may be able to modify them at some later
date.
Gail
Gail Songer
Peerless Systems Corp
gsonger at peerless.com
-----Original Message-----
From: carl at manros.com [mailto:carl at manros.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 9:11 AM
To: Gail Songer; Ipp at Pwg. Org
Cc: Tom Hastings
Subject: RE: IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining
IPP draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR
RESPONSES April 12, 2004
Gail,
We only have ourselves to blame for the non-progression of these drafts
in
the IETF. Nobody in the IPP WG stepped up to the task of responding to
the
comments that we go back from our Area Director. If you or somebody else
in
the WG is prepared to pick up the job where we left it off these drafts
can
still be progressed. It seems that Tom Hastings is not prepared to spend
more editor's time on this as he is already overextended. Also, this is
not
only an editing job, it is also a matter of reaching IPP WG agreements
on
the changes requested by the Area Director.
These drafts are IETF drafts and although people who are also PWG
members
have made most of the contributions in them they have not been "given by
the
PWG to the IETF", so there cannot be any question about "giving them
back".
As for the PWG getting the rigth to take over some of the drafts as
basis
for possible future PWG standards, I think that would be a question for
the
PWG chair to take up directly with the IESG, via our new Area Director.
I
don't think this can be handled on the IETF WG level, although I can
certainly contribute in the discussions.
Carl-Uno
Carl-Uno Manros
700 Carnegie Street #3724
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Tel +1-702-617-9414
Fax +1-702-617-9417
Mob +1-702-525-0727
Email carl at manros.com
Web www.manros.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of Gail
> Songer
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:27 AM
> To: carl at manros.com; Ipp at Pwg. Org
> Cc: Tom Hastings
> Subject: RE: IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining
> IPP draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR
> RESPONSES April 12, 2004
>>> Carl-Uno,
>> I'm not sure it's correct to say that there is no interest in these
> standards. IPPFax had to pull IPP notifications from our list of
> required functionality sometime in the last 6 months because the specs
> were not progressing in the IETF and not because we didn't want to use
> them.
>> Can we get the rights to these specs back from the IETF? (With the
hope
> of someday completing them ourselves?)
>> Gail
>> Gail Songer
> Peerless Systems Corp
>gsonger at peerless.com>>> -----Original Message-----
> From: carl at manros.com [mailto:carl at manros.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 2:40 PM
> To: Ipp at Pwg. Org
> Cc: Carl-Uno Manros; Tom Hastings
> Subject: IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining IPP
> draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR
RESPONSES
> April 12, 2004
>> All,
>> I agree with Tom Hastings that the interest for these drafts have
> decreased
> dramatically since they were first created almost 3 years ago. I clear
> sign
> is that were have not responded to comments from our Area Director
> received
> a very long time ago.
> It also seems that there is a lack of interest to implement the
features
> in
> these drafts from vendors, so who would we be writing these standards
> for? I
> think we are just spinning our wheels to no effect!
>> However, before we officially ask the IETF secretariat to kill off
these
> documents for good, I would like to give everybody in the WG a chance
to
> comment.
>> If you or your organization still have interest in pursuing the
> completion
> of any of these 4 draft documents, I want to hear from you on the IPP
DL
> no
> later than April 12, 2004. This gives you plenty of time to think this
> over
> one more time.
>> If we decide to drop these documents is also means that we can drop
the
> IPP
> WG as an active IETF WG. As stated, the IPP DL will still remain in
> place
> for discussion of the RFCs that have made it to Proposed Standards or
> Informational earlier in the WG life cycle.
>> If we don't hear from you before the deadline, it will be interpreted
as
> if
> you agree to close down any further work in the WG.
>> Regards,
>> Carl-Uno Manros
> Chair of IETF IPP WG
> 700 Carnegie Street #3724
> Henderson, NV 89052, USA
> Tel +1-702-617-9414
> Fax +1-702-617-9417
> Mob +1-702-525-0727
> Email carl at manros.com> Web www.manros.com
>> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of
> Hastings,
> > Tom N
> > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 1:49 PM
> > To: Manros, Carl-Uno
> > Cc: ipp at pwg.org> > Subject: IPP> Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining IPP documents
> and
> > close down the IETF IPP WG
> >
> >
> > Carl-Uno,
> >
> > You asked me to proposed actions about the remaining IPP
> > documents that are
> > in the IETF standards track, since I'm the editor of them.
> >
> > After talking with you and others, it seems best to withdraw the
> remaining
> > IETF IPP documents and close down the IPP WG. There does not seem
to
> be
> > sufficient interest in implementing these specifications to warrant
> > continuing them. With only one or two companies are interested, it
is
> > better not to pursue these documents in the IETF. The IPP DL will
> remain
> > indefinitely for discussions about IPP RFCs, issues, registrations,
> etc.
> >
> >
> > From the IESG ID Status Tracker, the IPP WG has 4 documents:
> >
> > 1. "Internet Printing Protocol (IPP): IPP Event Notifications and
> > Subscriptions", R. Herriot and T. Hastings, 2/21/2003,
> > <draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-11.txt> (Proposed standard)
> >
> > Draft Name: draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-11.txt (WG <ipp> submission)
> > IESG Discussion: Available
> > Version: 11
> > Intended Status: Proposed Standard
> > On Next Agenda? No
> > Current State: IESG Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed
> > Shepherding AD: Hollenbeck, Scott
> > Status Date: 2003-02-13
> > Note: Revised version needed to address discuss comments
> >
> >
> > 2. "Internet Printing Protocol: Requirements for IPP
> Notifications", T.
> > Hastings, R Bergman, R deBry, 07/23/2001,
<draft-ietf-ipp-not-06.txt>
> > (Informational)
> >
> > Draft Name: draft-ietf-ipp-not-06.txt (WG <ipp> submission)
> > IESG Discussion: Not Available
> > Version: 06
> > Intended Status: Informational
> > On Next Agenda? No
> > Current State: IESG Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed
> > Shepherding AD: Hollenbeck, Scott
> > Status Date: 2003-02-13
> > Note: Revised ID needed to address discuss comments
> >
> >
> > 3. "Internet Printing Protocol (IPP): The 'ippget' Delivery Method
> for
> > Event Notifications", R. Herriot, T. Hastings, and H. Lewis,
> 2/21/2003,
> > <draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-09.txt> (Proposed standard)
> >
> > Draft Name: draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-09.txt (WG <ipp> submission)
> > IESG Discussion: Not Available
> > Version: 09
> > Intended Status: Proposed Standard
> > On Next Agenda? No
> > Current State: IESG Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed
> > Shepherding AD: Hollenbeck, Scott
> > Status Date: 2003-02-13
> > Note: Revised ID needed to address discuss comments
> >
> >
> > 4. "Internet Printing Protocol (IPP): Job and Printer
> Administrative
> > Operations", T. Hastings, R Bergman, Carl Kugler, 07/23/2001,
> > <draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2-03.txt> (Proposed standard)
> >
> > Draft Name: draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2-03.txt (WG <ipp> submission)
> > IESG Discussion: Available
> > Version: 03
> > Intended Status: Proposed Standard
> > On Next Agenda? No
> > Current State: IESG Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed
> > Shepherding AD: Hollenbeck, Scott
> > Status Date:
> > Note: IESG feedback returned to WG 20-Jun-2002; new ID needed
> > with improved
> > security considerations section
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: carl at manros.com [mailto:carl at manros.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 07:53
> > To: ipp at pwg.org> > Cc: Tom Hastings
> > Subject: FW: New AD and WG Status Request
> > Importance: High
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am forwarding this message from our new IETF Area Director. I
> > will need to
> > consult with the editors to prepare a reply to Scott Hollenbeck.
> > We need to
> > do that within the next week or so as I will be leaving for a 3
> > week trip to
> > Japan on March 20, so please get back to me ASAP to agree on a phone
> > meeting.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Carl-Uno
> >
> > Carl-Uno Manros
> > 700 Carnegie Street #3724
> > Henderson, NV 89052, USA
> > Tel +1-702-617-9414
> > Fax +1-702-617-9417
> > Mob +1-702-525-0727
> > Email carl at manros.com> > Web www.manros.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Hollenbeck [mailto:sah at 428cobrajet.net]
> > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 6:37 AM
> > To: Andrew Gierth; Carl-Uno Manros; Claudio Allocchio; Donald
Eastlake
> > 3rd; Glenn Parsons; Hiroshi Tamura; John Noerenberg; Lisa Dusseault;
> Ned
> > Freed; Pete Resnick; Rik Drummond; Russ Allbery; Steve Hole
> > Cc: 'Ted Hardie'; sah at 428cobrajet.net> > Subject: New AD and WG Status Request
> > Importance: High
> >
> >
> > All:
> >
> > I had a chance to meet with several of you while at the IETF meeting
> in
> > Seoul last week. This note is primarily for those of you that I
> > haven't yet
> > met.
> >
> > Ned Freed's IESG term as Applications AD expired with the end of
> > the meeting
> > in Seoul. Ted Hardie and I are now your Applications area
directors.
> My
> > responsibilities will include the following WGs:
> >
> > EDIINT (Rik Drummond)
> > FAX (Claudio Allocchio, Hiroshi Tamura)
> > IMAPEXT (Pete Resnick)
> > IPP (Carl-Uno Manros)
> > MSGTRAK (Steve Hole)
> > NNTPEXT (Ned Freed, Russ Allbery)
> > TRADE (Donald Eastlake 3rd)
> > USEFOR (Pete Resnick, Andrew Gierth)
> > VPIM (John Noerenberg, Glenn Parsons)
> > XMPP (Pete Resnick, Lisa Dusseault)
> >
> > I'd like to get a handle on where each of the these WGs is with
> respect to
> > the milestones identified in your charters. Please take a few
moments
> to
> > clue me in this week by responding to this message (private reply to
> me is
> > OK) with a description of WG status, including any open WG actions.
> If
> > there are outstanding AD actions that you need to have completed,
I'd
> like
> > to be made aware of those as well.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Looking forward to working with you,
> > -Scott-
> >
>>>>