Report from Minneapolis...
I think I can speak for the BOF that there is no consensus for looking at
anything other than a Standards Track [1.1 vs 1.0] work as a baseline for a
Fxx like protocol (we're trying not to use the Fxx word) . Normative
references to non-standards track work is a big NO-NO here if you want to
IESG approvals. The BOF held today outlined a number of charter issues that
must be addressed as well as a need to re-review other proposals such as
SMTP SESSION as logical alternatives. Its going to be several months before
this work is formally chartered by the IETF.
There was consensus today that 6 issues must be addressed by candidate
A .Timely Delivery [not store and forward]
C. Quality of output
D. Legal Identity Exchange
F. Capabilities Exchange
G. Proof of Delivery
What will happen next is I've got to clean up the charter, get the minutes
Since I'm the proposed chair I really can't be the sole author of any of
the drafts...another big IETF NO-NO.. so I'm going to identify a coauthor
we will rip the old IPP2IFAX draft apart.
We will also need to identify authors for a formal "IPP as a Document
Delivery Service" and potentially "IPP Gateway Services" as well.
There was a suggestion by Larry Masinter that such a Goals document be
merged with RFC2542 the goals and requirements documents for fax, that met
with considerable consensus so it might be useful to review that document
by those interested in this work.
Remember that there is a separate list for this discussion topic and the
IETF way is that the discussion should be reflected on the list even if it
is held off line from time to time. I am going to bend over backwards to
satisify the requirements and feelings of the AD's towards this work.
Yes Carl-Uno has his work cut out for him ...but please extend some
sympathy to me as well if and when when I have to wade into the ITU.
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : firstname.lastname@example.org