IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standa

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standa

RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?

From: Zehler, Peter (PZehler@crt.xerox.com)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 15:27:49 EDT

  • Next message: Zehler, Peter: "IPP> Extended PWG Semantic Model(Document Object Final) Teleconference"

    Carl-Uno,

    At this time I see no reason to bump the major version number. If we
    determine that there are on-the-wire incompatibilities with IPP 1.1 I would
    have no objection to bumping the major number. I strongly object to bumping
    the major number simply for political or cosmetic purposes. As of yet all
    the extensions to IPP are simple extensions and utilize standard IPP
    mechanisms for negotiation and graceful declination of unsupported features.
    Let's keep IPP's interoperable not only for low and high end implementations
    but also for version interoperability.

    Pete

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Carl [mailto:carl@manros.com]
    Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 3:10 PM
    To: Zehler, Peter; 'McDonald, Ira'; ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?

    OK Peter I hear you laud and clear,

    but maybe the PWG should give it a new major revision number, to clearly
    distinguish it from the published IETF RFCs, especilly if you intend to add
    new required features, that were previously optional.

    As IETF chair, I am getting increasingly concerned that the traffic on the
    IETF IPP DL has little or nothing to do with IETF anymore...

    Carl-Uno

    Carl-Uno Manros
    700 Carnegie Street #3724
    Henderson, NV 89052, USA
    Tel +1-702-617-9414
    Fax +1-702-617-9417
    Mob +1-702-525-0727
    Email carl@manros.com
    Web www.manros.com

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Zehler,
    > Peter
    > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:07 AM
    > To: 'carl@manros.com'; Zehler, Peter; 'McDonald, Ira'; ipp@pwg.org
    > Subject: RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?
    >
    >
    > Carl-Uno,
    >
    > What's an IETF? My objective is to get something, other than an
    > rfc on mail
    > or evil bits in IP headers, published. And I want to do it in a timely
    > manner. I do not have the luxury of waiting years for our pleads with the
    > IETF to be heard. The IETF appears to have little interest in addressing
    > the boring subject of printing even though that it is a major source of
    > support calls from real users.
    >
    > I want to reach consensus and demonstrate interoperable implementations
    > before I worry about how long, or if, the IETF will take to move this
    > standard forward.
    >
    > Pete
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Carl [mailto:carl@manros.com]
    > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 11:08 AM
    > To: Zehler, Peter; 'McDonald, Ira'; ipp@pwg.org
    > Subject: RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?
    >
    >
    > Peter,
    >
    > When you talk about an IPP/1.2 spec are you expecting that to be published
    > by the IETF?
    >
    > If so, should we plan to hold an IPP WG meeting in the next IETF Meeting
    > (Vienna in July)?
    >
    > Carl-Uno
    >
    > Carl-Uno Manros
    > 700 Carnegie Street #3724
    > Henderson, NV 89052, USA
    > Tel +1-702-617-9414
    > Fax +1-702-617-9417
    > Mob +1-702-525-0727
    > Email carl@manros.com
    > Web www.manros.com
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Zehler,
    > > Peter
    > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 4:47 AM
    > > To: 'McDonald, Ira'; 'ipp@pwg.org'
    > > Subject: RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?
    > >
    > >
    > > All,
    > >
    > > I think an IPP v1.2 would be a good idea. It would give us an
    > opportunity
    > > to collect all the extensions into a single document. (A one
    > > stop shop for
    > > IPP as opposed to about 1500 pages spread over some 28 documents) This
    > > would also give us an opportunity for another Bake-Off. We have
    > > done a very
    > > good job on interoperability on the core specs. I am unsure
    > > about the level
    > > interoperability of the various extensions. I know some
    > problems already
    > > exist.
    > >
    > > Pete
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
    > > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 5:51 PM
    > > To: 'ipp@pwg.org'
    > > Subject: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?
    > >
    > >
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > Dennis Carney (IBM) recently observed that the IPP Document Object
    > > spec was starting to sound a lot like "IPP/1.2". Below, Michael
    > > Sweet (CUPS) again raises the possibility of an "IPP.1.2".
    > >
    > > Is this a worthwhile idea?
    > >
    > > _If_ there was at least one other editor who was MS Word literate
    > > (Dennis Carney, Tom Hastings, ...?), I would volunteer to collaborate
    > > on writing an "IPP/1.2" spec with new significantly higher REQUIRED
    > > features that consisted entirely (or almost entirely) of pointers to
    > > the definitions of operations, objects, and attributes in the over 30
    > > documents (IETF and IEEE/ISTO) that currently specify parts of IPP.
    > >
    > > Any takers?
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > > - Ira McDonald
    > > High North Inc
    > >
    > >
    > > ----- Excerpt ------
    > >
    > > Michael Sweet wrote:
    > > >Hastings, Tom N wrote:
    > > >> ...
    > > >> 1. DEPRECATE the way a client can close a Job by supplying an empty
    > > >
    > > >Hmm, knowing that people are busy, etc., what are the chances that
    > > >we do an IPP/1.2 specification based upon the current 1.1 docs +
    > > >the common extensions (collections, notifications?, job-and-printer
    > > >ops, plus the document object stuff)?
    > > >
    > > >This is another extension which is pointing to an IPP/1.2 version
    > > >bump - deprecating operations is something that should be reserved
    > > >for new versions, since otherwise you might not have at least 1
    > > >version to provide a transition period...
    > > >
    > >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 15:29:47 EDT