IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP LDAP as Information vs Standard RFC ??

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP LDAP as Information vs Standard RFC ??

Re: IPP LDAP as Information vs Standard RFC ??

From: flemingp@us.ibm.com
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 12:50:13 EDT

  • Next message: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM: "Re: IPP> TES - Bake-Off Phone conference"

    Harry,
    I understand. Who can contact the IPP WG chair and see if they'll pursue
    the standards track for this RFC. Thanks.

    Pat Fleming, Directory and Websphere Technology CEM
    Phone: 507-253-7583 (T/L 553-7583) Dept 45E/Bldg 015-2 / F111
    flemingp@us.ibm.com

    HARRY LEWIS
    08/15/2000 11:25 AM

    To: Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM
    cc: imcdonal@sdsp.mc.xerox.com, imcdonald@sharplabs.com
    Subject: Re: IPP LDAP as Information vs Standard RFC ?? (Document link:
          Pat Fleming)

    I'm thoroughly frustrated by the IETF process and apparent arbitrary focus
    on some parts of network infrastructure vs. others. Presumably, if it's
    worth documenting and fosters interoperability, it should be on the
    standards track. There are those who consider standards track a requirement
    before they implement.

    My experience is that industry momentum (or lack thereof) determines
    acceptance in the print industry and the RFC number is a "formality"... be
    it experimental, informational or standards track.

    So my answer is:

    1. It SHOULD be Standards Track, but this should not entail any additional
    work on our parts
    2. If we feel Standards Track would cause additional justification,
    consternation or whatever... it's not worth it.

    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

     

                        Pat Fleming

                                             To: Harry
    Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, imcdonald@sharplabs.com,
                        08/14/2000 imcdonal@sdsp.mc.xerox.com

                        02:42 PM cc:

                                             Subject: IPP LDAP as
    Information vs Standard RFC ??
     

    Harry and Ira,
    I asked Bob and Lee for feed back on our IPP LDAP I-D being submitted as an
    'information' vs 'standard' RFC. I'm neutral on this right now. What do
    you two think about this? Should we just leave it as an information rfc?

    Pat Fleming, Directory and Websphere Technology CEM
    Phone: 507-253-7583 (T/L 553-7583) Dept 45E/Bldg 015-2 / F111
    flemingp@us.ibm.com
    ---------------------- Forwarded by Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM on 08/14/2000
    03:37 PM ---------------------------

    Lee Rafalow
    08/11/2000 02:14 PM

    To: Robert Moore/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
    cc: Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
    From: Lee Rafalow/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
    Subject: Re: New INFORMATIONAL document for publishing as RFC - Internet
          Print ing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
          <draft-ietf-ipp-ldap -printer-schema-03.txt> (Document link: Pat
          Fleming)

    I agree with Bob's assessment. One other consideration is that the extra
    cachet of standards-track generally means that companies will implement it
    (because they've agreed to it) whereas informational means companies may or
    may not, because they haven't agreed, they've just been informed.

    Lee M. Rafalow
    Voice: 1-919-254-4455 (8-444-4455); Fax: 1-919-254-6243 (8-444-6243)
    IBM Internet Technology Management
    IBM Corporation
    P.O. Box 12195, BRQA/502
    RTP, NC 27709 USA
    Alternate email: rafalow@raleigh.ibm.com
    Intranet: http://rafalow.raleigh.ibm.com/
    Home email: rafalow@mindspring.com

    Robert Moore
    08/11/2000 01:46 PM

    To: Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
    cc: Lee Rafalow/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
    From: Robert Moore/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
    Subject: Re: New INFORMATIONAL document for publishing as RFC - Internet
          Print ing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
          <draft-ietf-ipp-ldap -printer-schema-03.txt> (Document link: Lee
          Rafalow)

    Pat,

    I'll offer several comments. Maybe Lee can offer some others.

       An Informational RFC is much more like a standards-track RFC than it is
       like an Internet-Draft. The key similarity is that all RFCs are
       permanent documents, archived forever and never changed once they're
       published (although they can be made obsolete by a subsequent RFC).
       Full Internet Standards have standard (STD) numbers, but almost everyone
       refers to them by their RFC numbers instead. And in this regard an
       Informational RFC is on exactly the same footing as a standard RFC --
       they both have 4-digit RFC numbers that come from the same number space,
       and their numbers will forever refer to exactly those documents.
       It's a cliche in IETF circles to grumble that "marketing" completely
       erases the distinction between an Informational RFC and a standard (or a
       standards-track RFC). When a vendor says that a product "supports RFC
       2999", customers never ask (and the vendor never volunteers) whether
       this is a standard / standards-track RFC or just an Informational one.

    So really it wouldn't particularly hurt you if this document went the path
    of an Informational RFC. That said, though, I don't agree with your
    chair's assessment that this is the path it *should* follow. There aren't
    too many LDAP schemas to compare it with, but there are a lot of SNMP MIBs
    that have been defined in the IETF. Almost all of these have taken the
    standards track, rather than being published as informational. So I would
    think that your LDAP schema would be a standards-track document as well.
    One question that might be relevant here is whether the document is a "work
    product" of the IPP WG, rather than a document that was produced by a set
    of individuals, and then presented to the WG for information. The fact
    that the filename starts draft-ietf-ipp-... isn't conclusive -- either type
    of document could have this form of filename. And the WG charter isn't
    helpful either, since the last milestone listed there is dated August 1997!

    My bottom line for you is this: you have a "right" for this document to be
    a standards-track RFC, but the added benefit of this status over an
    Informational RFC isn't great enough to justify spending very much time
    fighting for this right.

    Regards,
    Bob

    Bob Moore
    IBM Networking Software
    +1-919-254-4436
    remoore@us.ibm.com

    Pat Fleming
    08/10/2000 09:48 PM

    To: Robert Moore/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
    cc:
    From: Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
    Subject: New INFORMATIONAL document for publishing as RFC - Internet Print
          ing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
          <draft-ietf-ipp-ldap -printer-schema-03.txt>

    Robert,
    I needs some help/advice here. The IPP chair just sent out this note
    concerning the Internet Draft we have been developing. Here he suggests
    that it become an Informational RFC. In earlier discussions with you and
    Lee, I remember some concerns about this becoming 'only' an informational
    draft (which are subject to change) and not an RFC standard. I believe Ira
    and myself were expecting this to become an internet standard. Is an
    informational draft the 'first' step to becoming a standard RFC? Or do we
    want to redirect the positioning of this I-D?

    Pat Fleming, Directory and Websphere Technology CEM
    Phone: 507-253-7583 (T/L 553-7583) Dept 45E/Bldg 015-2 / F111
    flemingp@us.ibm.com
    ---------------------- Forwarded by Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM on 08/10/2000
    02:14 PM ---------------------------

    "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com> on 08/10/2000 01:39:46 PM

    To: iesg@ietf.org
    cc: Carl-Uno Manros <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>, Ned Freed
          <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com>, Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>, Pat
          Fleming/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
    Subject: New INFORMATIONAL document for publishing as RFC - Internet Print
          ing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
          <draft-ietf-ipp-ldap -printer-schema-03.txt>

    Members of the IESG,

    The IETF IPP WG has finished the work on the following document, which has
    passed through the IPP WG Last Call.
    The document has been also been reviewed by the LDAP Extensions WG, and is
    aligned with a corresponding schema for the Service Location Protocol.

         Internet Printing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
          <draft-ietf-ipp-ldap-printer-schema-03.txt>

    My understanding is that this kind of document is typically published as an
    INFORMATIONAL RFC.
    The schema also needs to be registered with the IANA.

    Regards,

    Carl-Uno Manros
    Chair of the IETF IPP WG

    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 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 16:11:25 EDT