IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification a

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification a

RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

From: Carl-Uno Manros (carl@manros.com)
Date: Wed Jun 21 2000 - 10:43:39 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Sweet: "Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement"

    Peter,

    As we all know, votes in IPP meetings can only be seen as recommendations to
    the group.

    We need to get the hopefully final draft version of the INDP method out, and
    then finally decide the matter on the IPP mailing list.

    Carl-Uno

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Zehler,
    > Peter
    > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 5:25 AM
    > To: henrik.holst@i-data.com; ipp@pwg.org; peter.ultved@i-data.com
    > Subject: RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
    >
    >
    > Henrik,
    >
    > From the May PWG/IPP meeting minutes:
    > "4.6 Mandatory Notification Method?
    >
    > After further discussion about a possible mandatory notification
    >
    > method, the group agreed that the INDP Notification method should
    >
    > become mandatory."
    >
    > As for going through firewalls, the Bake-Off (hopefully) will test that
    > specifically. Firewalls can be configured to allow specific traffic to
    > pass. Some filter only on a port number and others examine content. I
    > intend to have two firewall vendors at the Bake-Off with products that are
    > able to filter at least on the port number. I hope at least one will also
    > be able to examine the MIME type.
    >
    > Pete
    > Peter Zehler
    > XEROX
    > Xerox Architecture Center
    > Email: Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com
    > Voice: (716) 265-8755
    > FAX: (716) 265-8792
    > US Mail: Peter Zehler
    > Xerox Corp.
    > 800 Phillips Rd.
    > M/S 139-05A
    > Webster NY, 14580-9701
    >
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: henrik.holst@i-data.com [mailto:henrik.holst@i-data.com]
    > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 3:53 AM
    > To: ipp@pwg.org; peter.ultved@i-data.com
    > Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
    >
    >
    >
    > Well it was my understanding that we didn't agree on a mandatory method.
    > And the INDP method
    > won't go through a firewall, so if you are searching for a
    > mandatory method
    > I would say MAILTO.
    >
    > Henrik
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com>@pwg.org on
    > 20-06-2000 17:43:51
    >
    > Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    >
    >
    > To: "IPP Discussion List (E-mail)" <IPP@pwg.org>
    > cc:
    >
    > Subject: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
    >
    >
    > All,
    >
    > I am working the content planning for the IPP Bake-Off. I want to be sure
    > that there is PWG wide agreement on the notification issue.
    >
    > It is my understanding that INDP is the mandated IPP notification method.
    > There were some minor updates that have been agreed to and we are awaiting
    > the final version of the document for PWG last call. The minor
    > changes are
    > documented in the meeting minutes from May meeting of the PWG. This
    > upcoming INDP document will be the document that the notification section
    > of
    > the Bake-Off will use as a base.
    >
    > Is this correct or did I misunderstand?
    >
    > Pete
    >
    > Peter Zehler
    > XEROX
    > Xerox Architecture Center
    > Email: Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com
    > Voice: (716) 265-8755
    > FAX: (716) 265-8792
    > US Mail: Peter Zehler
    > Xerox Corp.
    > 800 Phillips Rd.
    > M/S 139-05A
    > Webster NY, 14580-9701
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 21 2000 - 10:50:38 EDT