I think it's okay (but of no real value) to publish the IPP specs
as Informational RFCs. But I also agree with Don Wright (Lexmark)
that we would do better to remove the IETF/IESG copyrights
entirely, publish IPP as Informational RFCs that are actual
PWG Standards, and move forward.
An absurd double standard is being applied here by the IESG.
The fundamental standard, LDAPv3 was allowed to be published
recently with an IESG note saying that appropriate security
will be added in a future update. Why isn't IPP (which is a
LOT less central to the public Internet infrastructure than
LDAPv3) being allowed to remain on the Internet 'standards
track' and take this route too?
You know the ACTUAL time to get an IETF standard published
as an RFC is considerably WORSE than for the IEEE (or even
some of the ISO efforts) and other considerably more
rigorous and respectable standards bodies. The PWG Job
Mon MIB, the 'revised' Printer MIB, and now IPP all bear
this sad history of hurrying up to meet changing and
qualitative (rather than formal) requirements and then
wallowing in the IETF process mill.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald (High North)
>-------------------------------------------
[Paul Moore's note and the prior thread]
Return-Path: <pwg-owner@pwg.org>
Received: from zombi (zombi.eso.mc.xerox.com) by snorkel.eso.mc.xerox.com (4.1/XeroxClient-1.1)
id AA00464; Mon, 24 Aug 98 16:59:24 EDT
Received: from alpha.xerox.com by zombi (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA17088; Mon, 24 Aug 98 16:51:33 EDT
Received: from lists.underscore.com ([199.125.85.30]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <52313(3)>; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 13:51:34 PDT
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA29650 for <imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:47:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:45:45 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA29160 for pwg-outgoing; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:41:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <CB6657D3A5E0D111A97700805FFE6587BF705C@RED-MSG-51>
From: Paul Moore <paulmo@microsoft.com>
To: "'Zehler, Peter '" <Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com>,
"Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>
Cc: Pwg@pwg.org
Subject: RE: PWG> Latest Status for IPP
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 13:41:39 PDT
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Sender: owner-pwg@pwg.org
Status: R
gets my vote (no suprise there)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zehler, Peter [SMTP:Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 1998 4:32 AM
> To: Manros, Carl-Uno B
> Cc: Pwg@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: PWG> Latest Status for IPP
>
> Carl-Uno,
> I am in favor of submitting IPP to the IETF as informational rfc's.
> Pete
>
> Peter Zehler
> XEROX
> Networked Products Business Unit
> Email: Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com
> Voice: (716) 265-8755
> FAX: (716) 265-8792
> US Mail: Peter Zehler
> Xerox Corp.
> 800 Phillips Rd.
> M/S 111-02J
> Webster NY, 14580-9701
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: don@lexmark.com [SMTP:don@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 23, 1998 4:15 PM
> To: Manros, Carl-Uno B
> Cc: Pwg@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: PWG> Latest Status for IPP
>
> Since, from at least an IPP perspective, I don't think the IETF/IESG
> has added
> one penny of value publishing the June 30th drafts as
> "informational" is fine
> with me. What we do as leaders in the print industry is clearly
> more important.
>
> Since the IETF/IESG clearly has no interest in IPP becoming their
> standard I
> would recommend we completely remove the IETF/IESG copyrights and
> replace them
> with PWG copyrights to preserve our freedom of action.
>
> **********************************************
> * Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
> * Product Manager, Strategic Alliances *
> * Lexmark International *
> * 740 New Circle Rd *
> * Lexington, Ky 40550 *
> * 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
> **********************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> "Manros, Carl-Uno B"
> <cmanros%cp10.es.xerox.com@interlock.lexmark.com> on
> 08/22/98 10:26:14 AM
>
> To: pwg%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com
> cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark
> Subject: PWG> Latest Status for IPP
>
>
>
>
> All,
>
> I am sending this message to the PWG members rather than to the IPP
> DL.
> Latest news from Keith Moore seems to indicate that he wants to
> enforce
> what was in his recent document:
>
> On the use of HTTP as a Substrate for Other Protocols
> <draft-iesg-using-http-00.txt>
>
> which would mean development of new not yet existing security
> features,
> which we all know can take a loooong time.
>
> He indicates that we can probably get the IPP RFCs out if we were
> prepared to drop the aim of getting them on the standards track.
>
> What is your reaction? How many of you would be willing to let the
> IPP
> documents be downgraded to "Informational" instead?
>
> If I can get a quick feedback from you on the PWG DL and there is
> sufficiently much support for that, I may be able to negotiate a
> deal
> with our Area Directors along those lines next week in Chicago.
>
> Carl-Uno
>
>
> Carl-Uno Manros
> Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - 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
>
>