applied to IPP, but either way it's just delaying our work. If we believe
there is a need for IPP (and from the interest shown by the industry we
have to assume there is) then let us finalize the 1.0 speciifcation quickly
and get some implementations out there.
Cheers,
Nick Webb
Director of Marketing
Auco, Inc.
(650) 569 4421
http://www.auco.com
cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com on 08/22/98 07:26:14
To: pwg@pwg.org
cc: (bcc: Nick Webb/AUCO/US)
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