IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeti

Re: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - The IPP Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)

From: Jay Martin (jkm@underscore.com)
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 23:07:00 EDT

  • Next message: Wagner,William: "RE: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - The IPP Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)"

    Ira,

    > Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot and precluding
    > clients incapable of using INDP from receiving full-function
    > IPP notifications?

    Ah, spoken like a true engineer... ;-)

    Let me ask the question another way, then:

        What kinds of IPP notifications are not WELL handled
        by simple plain text email messages?

    Please be as specific as you can, expressing the situation
    in real-world use cases (and not simply citing chapter-and-verse
    from the IPP spec).

    --------------------------------------------------------
    To everyone else on this list:

    Do my comments on this thread sound like plain ranting?
    Am I entirely off-base here, or what? Please speak up,
    as I grow increasingly weary of conducting these trials
    and tribulations with the same old Usual Suspects. ;-)

    And lest anyone misinterpret my position, let me say that
    I wish we could all have neat, cool, real-time binary stuff
    flowing between consumer and provider, regardless of the
    specific application. That would be a Good Thing, causing
    a wonderful User Experience.

    However, the many arrows in this engineer's back has caused
    him to become (dare I say?) a Realist with regard to the
    business case.

    Making a subsystem so gosh darn complex--just to have that
    capability--yet totally ignore the real-world business case
    is wholey inappropriate and irresponsible.

    My $0.02 worth, of course. Now let's hear from the Silent Majority, ok?

            ...jay



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 23:18:44 EDT