IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notifica

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notifica

RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery methodby July 7

From: Carl-Uno Manros (carl@manros.com)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2000 - 10:34:02 EDT

  • Next message: Carl-Uno Manros: "RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery method by July 7"

    Ira,

    On 2): I have assumed that we still want to finish all four delivery specs,
    but the priority order will be determined by the answer to 1)

    On 3): As I stated before, this more a commercial decision on what peole
    plan to actually implement, but hopefully has some relationship to 1) and
    2).

    Let's try to do 1) first and see where that takes us.

    I did tell you this was going to be fun....

    Carl-Uno

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of McDonald,
    > Ira
    > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 8:27 PM
    > To: 'Hugo Parra'; ipp@pwg.org
    > Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery
    > methodby July 7
    >
    >
    > Hi Hugo and Carl-Uno,
    >
    > Boy I can feel this quicksand moving already...
    >
    > So there are at least three separate things we really need to
    > rank/decide:
    >
    > 1) [Carl-Uno's current polling objective]
    > IPP/1.x Notifications - which method(s) are required for
    > all implementations, so that the IESG can have a conformance
    > testing report when we want to move IPP (and _all_ of its
    > IETF spec options) to IETF Draft Standard status next year?
    >
    > 2) IETF specs - which method(s) will we finish up and issue?
    > - the spec editors want to know this
    >
    > 3) Bakeoff - which method(s) will be tested in October?
    > - Pete Zehler wants to know this and so does Paul Moore
    >
    > Comments?
    >
    > Cheers,
    > - Ira McDonald
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Hugo Parra [mailto:HPARRA@novell.com]
    > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 7:59 PM
    > To: ipp@pwg.org
    > Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery
    > methodby July 7
    >
    >
    > I see *your* point. Except my vote was going to be ...
    >
    > a) over email - 1
    > b) over IPP
    > c) over INDP - 1
    > d) over SNMP
    > e) don't mandate any - 2
    >
    > But, if that's not an option then I'll settle for ...
    >
    > a) over email - 0 (strongly recommend)
    > b) over IPP - 0
    > c) over INDP - 0 (strongly recommend)
    > d) over SNMP - 0
    >
    > -Hugo
    >
    > >>> "Carl-Uno Manros" <carl@manros.com> 06/28/00 08:28PM >>>
    > Hugo,
    >
    > I see your point, but I don't want to change the rules again.
    > What I intend
    > to do is to count the 0000-ids as a separate category; if we end up having
    > more people in that group than in the one that has allocated
    > their 4 points,
    > we have a clear answer. Nobody's voice will go unheard...
    >
    > Carl-Uno
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Hugo Parra [mailto:HPARRA@novell.com]
    > > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 7:15 PM
    > > To: cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com; carl@manros.com; pmoore@peerless.com
    > > Cc: ipp@pwg.org
    > > Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery
    > > methodby July 7
    > >
    > >
    > > Shouldn't the options be ...
    > >
    > > a) over email
    > > b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
    > > c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
    > > direction)
    > > d) over SNMP
    > > e) don't mandate any
    > >
    > > Otherwise those who give each entry a weight of zero, basically
    > > through away their vote.
    > >
    > > -Hugo
    > >
    > > >>> "Carl-Uno Manros" <carl@manros.com> 06/28/00 07:52PM >>>
    > > Oh no, I managed to not be completely clear after all.
    > >
    > > The weighting is for the IETF standards texts.
    > >
    > > What gets tested in the bake-off is the decision of the PWG,
    > > which hosts the
    > > bake-off event, and has nothing to do with this exercise.
    > >
    > > Carl-Uno
    > >
    > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of
    > > > pmoore@peerless.com
    > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 5:47 PM
    > > > To: Manros, Carl-Uno B
    > > > Cc: IETF-IPP
    > > > Subject: Re: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification
    > delivery method
    > > > by July 7
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > If this is a vote for making things mandatory :-
    > > >
    > > > 0 a) over email
    > > > 0 b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
    > > > 0 c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
    > > > direction)
    > > > 0 d) over SNMP
    > > >
    > > > I dont think mandating is useful
    > > >
    > > > If this is a vote for 'what specs do we need to agree and
    > bakeoff ASAP'
    > > >
    > > > 2 a) over email
    > > > 0 b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
    > > > 2 c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
    > > > direction)
    > > > 0 d) over SNMP
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com> on 06/28/2000
    > > 05:17:16 PM
    > > >
    > > > To: IETF-IPP <ipp@pwg.org>
    > > > cc: (bcc: Paul Moore/AUCO/US)
    > > >
    > > > Subject: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery
    > > > method by July 7
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > All,
    > > >
    > > > The IETF does not do voting, but we can ask people to allocate
    > > weights to
    > > > their favorite method. From the result I hope to get a picture of
    > > > whether we
    > > > have a clear "rough consensus" favorite, or if we should just
    > > avoid trying
    > > > to make any particular notification delivery method the "required" or
    > > > "mandated" one.
    > > >
    > > > So let the weightings begin!
    > > >
    > > > Here are the rules:
    > > >
    > > > 1) We have 4 candidate notification delivery methods, briefly
    > > > described as:
    > > >
    > > > a) over email
    > > > b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
    > > > c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
    > > direction)
    > > > d) over SNMP
    > > >
    > > > 2) You have a total of maximum 4 weight points to allocate
    > between the 4
    > > > methods above.
    > > >
    > > > a) You can put all your 4 points on one favorite and leave the
    > > > other three
    > > > with 0 each. (the 'all eggs in one basket' option)
    > > > b) If you don't really mind which method, you can give 1 point
    > > to each of
    > > > the methods. (the 'chicken' option)
    > > > c) You can allocate your 4 points somewhere between the two
    > > extreme cases
    > > > above. (the 'diplomatic' options)
    > > > d) If you don't want to make ANY of the methods "required" or
    > > "mandated",
    > > > put a 0 for ALL four methods! (the 'don't even try it' option)
    > > >
    > > > If you still haven't understood the rules, please read the above
    > > > text 3 more
    > > > times, before you make a fool of yourself....., or of me for not
    > > > being clear
    > > > enough ;-{
    > > >
    > > > So please collect your wits and send your weights to the IPP
    > DL no later
    > > > than next Friday July 7!
    > > >
    > > > Have fun.... and remember that if you do not participate you
    > cannot win!
    > > >
    > > > Carl-Uno
    > > >
    > > > Carl-Uno Manros
    > > > Principal Engineer - Xerox Architecture Center - Xerox Corporation
    > > > 701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
    > > > Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
    > > > Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 10:42:13 EDT