I am pleased to learn that a major IPP implementation will actually have the
notification features in the not too distant future.
However, I have one question for you. As far as I remember the Area Director
comments to our latest drafts was that he wanted to see firmed up or better
text for the security sections. Have you taken those comments into
consideration when planning your implementation? If we want to progress the
drafts in the IETF we need to respond the earlier Area Director comments as
the first step in the process.
Tom, any chance that you can dig out the exact Area Director comments on
these drafts and republish them on the DL to remind us all what they were?
700 Carnegie Street #3724
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Sweet [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 3:14 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: Ipp@Pwg. Org; Tom Hastings
> Subject: Re: IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining
> IPP draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR
> RESPONSES April 12, 2004
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > ...
> > If you or your organization still have interest in pursuing the
> > completion of any of these 4 draft documents, I want to hear from you
> > on the IPP DL no later than April 12, 2004. This gives you plenty of
> > time to think this over one more time.
> We will (finally) be adding IPP notification support (specs 1-3
> in your posting) in CUPS 1.2 sometime this year. There *is* a
> need for notifications in CUPS.
> In any case, I don't care if the notification stuff is a PWG or
> an IETF standard - either way we will be following the spec.
> Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike at easysw dot com
> Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 16 2004 - 11:26:25 EST