IPP Mail Archive: IPP> Re: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Schedule for Monterey Meeting

IPP Mail Archive: IPP> Re: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Schedule for Monterey Meeting

IPP> Re: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Schedule for Monterey Meeting

Scott Isaacson (SISAACSON@novell.com)
Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:17:31 -0600

I agree with Harry's statements. We need to lock down on IPP v1.0. =
Define it and be done with it. If we talk about anything else but IPP =
v1.0 until we resolve all issues, we are not doing the right thing. MIB =
access, notificaitons, SDP, should all be put on hold until v1.0 is =
signed, sealed, and delivered. =20

In the last phone call I heard that if we defined a new default port and =
kept SHOULD for client TLS support, then we were DONE with all of the IESG =
issues besides editing fixes. I am surprised that we still think that we =
have issues. We have had basic consensus on most of this since the =
Munich IETF meetings. We can't allow ourselves to throw it all open =


>>> Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com> 06/16 8:45 AM >>>
Don - this is appropriate - THANK YOU!

I am willing to forgo discussion of Notifications and SDP (and ALL post v1
topics) in order to focus on CLOSING v1 at Monterey! I think we should =
Monterey with a FINAL list of issues... we should limit discussion of each
issue to a reasonable time period and be DECISIVE about each issue. We =
focus MAINLY on closing the nitty-gritty technical issues that actually =
the specification, clarity etc. If we still have major controversy, such =
as web
and firewall philosophy, it should be allowed to rain no longer than 1 or =
hours, then put to rest. There has been PLENTY of time to resolve these =
via the reflector and it would be best if we had them resolved prior to =

Interoperability testing and test results should be our secondary focus