IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)

RE: IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)

Robert Herriot (robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM)
Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:06:58 -0800

It's not new. It was part of Tom's proposal at the Austin meeting. We
discussed
and rejected it as too late. =20

At 02:05 PM 3/13/98 , Turner, Randy wrote:
>
>This issue was not brought up in Austin. Only a name change for the
>current document was an issue. As far as I can tell, including the
>minutes from Austin, my split proposal is new, and is derived from my
>efforts at actually doing another mapping document.
>
>Randy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: don@lexmark.com [SMTP:don@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 12:46 PM
> To: rturner@sharplabs.com
> Cc: Ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)
>
>
> I think this issue was decided in Austin with a name change for
>the
> Protocol document.
> Considering the pain separating them now would be and having to
>deal with
> editing all
> the cross references, etc. in the IETF format is just not worth
>it.=A0 When
> the time comes to
> map IPP to another transport then Bob or whoever is editor of
>that protocol
> document
> can make the split.
>
> **********************************************
> * Don Wright=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
don@lexmark.com *
> * Product Manager, Strategic Alliances=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 *
> * Lexmark International=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0 *
> * 740 New Circle Rd=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 *
> * Lexington, Ky 40550=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 *
> * 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax)=A0=A0=A0 *
> **********************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To:=A0=A0 ipp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com
> cc:=A0=A0=A0 (bcc: Don Wright)
> bcc:=A0 Don Wright
> Subject:=A0 IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)
>
>
>
>
>
> Would anyone have any problem(s) splitting the protocol (not
>model)
> document into two documents?
> Document 1 would be an encoding document
> Document 2 would describe how to transport the encoding over
>HTTP 1.1
> ?
> Randy
>=20