One way to help the process along would be to have some people prototyping
(breadboarding) the current proposals and giving feedback. I think that
notification is an area that needs prototyping more than the rest of the
spec did in order to get a reasonable and simple spec.
From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 09:04
To: email@example.com; Manros, Carl-Uno B
Subject: RE: IPP> MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations
regist ration pr
You may be happy to learn that we have just put out a revised I-D on IPP
notifications and this subject will be discussed in our upcoming PWG meeting
in Copenhagen and in the IETF meeting in Oslo. The subject is not forgotten.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Martin [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 1999 9:48 AM
> To: Manros, Carl-Uno B
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations
> registration pr
> "Manros, Carl-Uno B" wrote:
> > All,
> > I have observed some of the comments on whether
> administrative functions
> > should be part of IPP or not.
> > Here is my take on it:
> > [...]
> > 6) What still remains to be done by the current IPP WG is
> to work out the
> > solutions for IPP Notifications, something that is
> explicitly in the current
> > charter.
> Amen. The PWG really must address and solve the notification problem
> before attempting to move on to higher level admin functions, IMHO.
> If you really want to make a difference in improving the general
> print environment, get going on solving the notification problem
> now, not later. Make this a priority, above all others.