IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> V1.1 Last Call

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> V1.1 Last Call

RE: IPP> V1.1 Last Call

Thu, 11 Mar 1999 21:05:50 -0500

I have no desire to delay this effort indefinitely but I see no reason to rush
over the cliff. We haven't even seen V1.0 published with an RFC number. I just
don't understand the rush. The benefits of a little operational experience to
reduce churn seems a valid trade-off. Churning a standard that is widely
implemented in EMBEDDED environments is doing no favor for the developers or the
users of these products. Remember it is not as easy to update products with
EMBEDDED code as it is for code running on a workstation or PC. Releasing a
V1.1 and then discovering something that needs to be "fixed" is much more
problamatic for us EMBEDDED guys.

* Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
* Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *

masinter%parc.xerox.com@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/11/99 04:24:27 PM

To: ipp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com
cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: RE: IPP> V1.1 Last Call

The charter of the IPP working group is to produce
a standards track protocol for Internet Print.
The working group was ready to complete a standards-track
document, but got distracted into producing an "Experimental"
RFC because of difficulties with the minor additions of
the new IPP scheme and a standard security mechanism.
Now that we've worked through those two minor additions,
it's time (well past) to actually create a standard.

Those who are not interested in having a standard
for Internet Print Protocol are not working on the
goals established by the charter of the working group.

We have years of effort invested in creating a
standard for Internet Printing. If we don't complete
this task, the work will have been wasted.

Working groups that fail to make progress toward the
milestones of the charter can be disbanded.

I understand that there are those who might want to
delay (indefinitely) the creation of any standard in this
area, but I don't think further delay is our mutual