IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> RE: PWG> Re: No more Bake-offs?

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> RE: PWG> Re: No more Bake-offs?

Re: IPP> RE: PWG> Re: No more Bake-offs?

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Tue Feb 06 2001 - 23:30:31 EST

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "RE: IPP> Interpreter List for MIME registration [question to Epso n about Escape/P]"

    How Silly!
    Harry Lewis

    "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    02/06/2001 07:38 PM

            To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
            cc: IETF-IPP <ipp@pwg.org>
            Subject: IPP> RE: PWG> Re: No more Bake-offs?


    To answer your question about whether we use Bake Off prominently:

    I changed the IPP Implementer's Guide just announced today as an I-D to
    "Interoperability Testing Events", instead of "Bake Offs". However, the
    file names that has the results remains the same with Bake-Off3 in the
    name, which I hope is not really a problem:

       The issues raised from the third Interoperability Testing Event are
       numbered 3.n in this document and are described in:


    Also the PWG IPP web page refers to a Bake-Off 3 document under Recent
    and under Testing. Perhaps the web page links (Bake-Off3 Results,
    Bake-Off3, and Bake-Offs) could be renamed to something like Testing Event
    Results, Testing Event 3, and Previous Testing Events though the first one
    points to files with Bake-Off in the file name (which again I hope is not



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [mailto:dee3@torque.pothole.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 09:45
    To: Manros, Carl-Uno B
    Cc: IETF-IPP; pwg@pwg.org; Scott Bradner; IETF App-WG-Chairs
    Subject: PWG> Re: No more Bake-offs?

    Do we really use that term very prominently? I think these days it is
    only used informally and "interoperability testing" or the like is
    what our process documents refer to. Why are we worried about this if
    it hasn't been a problem?


    PS: I think Pillsbury's lawyers don't have a case anyway but its
    probably not worth going into the details of that as they could cause

    From: "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>
    To: IETF-IPP <ipp@pwg.org>
    Cc: pwg@pwg.org, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>,
                IETF App-WG-Chairs
    Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:02:02 -0800
    Content-Type: text/plain;
    >The Pillsbury company introduced the term Bake-Off in 1949 and has it as
    >registered trademark. They also own the web site www.bakeoff.com
    >Their lawyers have apparently recently started attacking other groups and
    >organizations that use the word for very different purposes.
    >See news article from today in the New Jersey Star-Ledger at:
    > http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/page1/ledger/121f112.html
    >Any suggestions for another term that we can use in the future, or do you
    >want to take on a fight with the Doughboy?
    >Carl-Uno Manros
    >Manager, Print Services
    >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 Feb 06 2001 - 23:32:07 EST