As a result of all this, are we going to update the currently-existing "PWG
Standards" (http://www.pwg.org/standards.html) with the correct status?
Of the five standards:
- Three (5100.1, 5100.2, and 5100.3) are marked as "PWG Draft" but I
believe they have gone through only one Last Call and no vote.
- One (5100.4) is marked as a "PWG Trial Use Standard", and says to look at
the PWG Process to find out what that is, but the PWG Process document has
no mention of such a thing.
- One (5101.1) is marked as a "PWG Standard", and although I don't know
exactly how many Last Calls, votes, etc. it has had, I'm pretty sure it has
not followed the requisite steps to be called a "PWG Standard".
If we're going to have a process, and expect it to be followed, I think we
really need to look at these five and bring them into compliance.
Dennis
"Hastings, Tom N"
<hastings@cp10.es To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
.xerox.com> cc: Gail Songer <gsonger@peerless.com>, pwg@pwg.org, "Seeler, Rick" <rseeler@adobe.com>
Sent by: Subject: RE: PWG> PWG Proposed Standard versus PWG Draft Standard
owner-pwg@pwg.org
01/14/03 10:54 AM
Harry,
So you are suggesting that the PWG names and steps are the same as the
IETF, which will help us all understand the PWG process better. I think
this is fine. And thanks for updating the PWG Process Document.
So we still need a name for the various versions of documents that lead up
to the Last Call. I think that the current PWG process document uses the
term "PWG Working Draft". So the template that I was working on for
IEEE-ISTO PWG standards should be for a "PWG Working Draft", not for a "PWG
Proposed Standard" or a "PWG Draft Standard". I can make a second template
for the PWG Proposed Standard which just changes the few items from "PWG
Working Draft" to "PWG Proposed Standard". OK?
This terminology and PWG steps map nicely and has a similar sound to the
IETF equivalents. The equivalents to the "PWG Working Draft" is the IETF
"INTERNET DRAFT".
So the complete PWG process is:
PWG Working Draft - many each with a distinguishing decimal version number
(0.1, 0.2, 0.3 ... 0.9, 0.10, 0.11, 0.12 ...) leading up to Last Call (1),
Last Call (2), or Last Call (3).
Last Call (1) + Vote -> Proposed Standard Version 1.0. If it is revised,
then repeat at this level with a new version number, either 1.1, or 2.0.
Last Call (2) + Vote + Steering Committee -> Draft Standard Inherits the
version number from the last Proposed
Last Call (3) + Vote + SC + General Acceptance and Interop -> Standard
Inherits the version number from the last Proposed
And the comparison of the PWG Process with the IETF Process is:
PWG Process -- IETF Equivalent
-------------------- ----------------------
PWG Working Draft -- Internet Draft
PWG Proposed Standard -- IETF Proposed Standard
PWG Draft Standard -- IETF Draft Standard
PWG Standard -- IETF Standard
and the Last Call requirements are the same for each step as well.
The one difference between the PWG process and the IETF process, is that
you are only requiring interop for going from Draft standard to Standard.
I think this is a mistake, since one of the purposes of the interop is to
fix the document. So I'd suggest adding back interop to going to Draft
Standard as well. And that we do interop after a Proposed Standard is
approved and decide whether to have another version of the Proposed
Standard or whether we can go on to Draft standard.
Right?
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 14:29
To: Hastings, Tom N
Cc: Gail Songer; pwg@pwg.org; Seeler, Rick
Subject: Re: PWG> PWG Proposed Standard versus PWG Draft Standard
I don't think it is healthy to relate our process steps to IETF. This
is an unfortunate artifact. I re-read and feel the doc is pretty
clear.
Last Call (1) + Vote -> Proposed Standard
Last Call (2) + Vote + Steering Committee -> Draft Standard
Last Call (3) + Vote + SC + General Acceptance and Interop ->
Standard
I'm sure there is room for clean-up. I will try to remove references
to IETF and add clarification where necessary and repost the document
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Hastings, Tom N"
<hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> To: pwg@pwg.org
cc: Gail Songer
Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org <gsonger@peerless.com>, "Seeler, Rick"
<rseeler@adobe.com>
Subject: PWG> PWG Proposed
12/11/2002 06:01 PM Standard versus PWG Draft Standard
PWG,
Our PWG Process document needs some work. There is confusion about
the
different steps in the PWG standards process. Dennis Carney and I
re-read
the current process document, available as .pdf from the Chair's
page.
In fact, the Tab at the top of the Chair's page gets you to a
different
version of the process document
(http://www.pwg.org/chair/pwg-process-990825.pdf)
than the first process document described as:
Review the Printer Working Group Standards Process document (pdf)
(http://www.pwg.org/chair/pwg-process-991021.pdf)
The latter fixes typos in the former with revision marks. The latter
attempts to map the PWG documents to the IETF documents by saying:
PWG working group charter is equivalent to an IETF working group
charter.
PWG Proposed Standard maps to an initial IETF Internet Draft
PWG Draft Standard maps to an IETF RFC Proposed Standard.
PWG Standard maps to an IETF RFC Draft Standard.
There is no PWG equivalent to the IETF Standard.
The intent of the PWG process was to skip one of the hurdles that the
IETF
has. So the first Last Call would be to transition a PWG Proposed
Standard
to a PWG Draft standard. We thought that only one round of
interoperability
tests were necessary (though more could be held) after reaching PWG
Draft
Standard status in order to transition to PWG Standard.
However, reading the text of the process document (sections 3.3, 3.4,
and
3.5) and the table at the end, Dennis and I agree that it isn't very
clear
whether the Last Call is needed to get to a Proposed Standard. If
so, then
the predecessor to a Proposed Standard is a series of "PWG Working
Drafts"
(not versions of a PWG Proposed Standard), according to section 3.3
and the
Table at the end. And then another Last Call to get to a Draft
Standard.
And a third Last Call to get to a PWG Standard. If so, then we would
have
the same number of stages in the PWG and the IETF. If we did, what
do we
call the versions of the document before the first Last Call? These
would
correspond to what the IETF calls Internet-Drafts.
The current 5100.1, .2, and .3 say PWG Draft Standard, because they
have
gone through their first Last Call, but have not had interoperability
testing.
The Media Standard is silent, so the Media standard looks like it is
a PWG
Standard, though no interoperability tests have taken place.
Anyway, the IPPFAX and PDF/is documents are ready for a Last Call.
We're
just not sure what to call the specifications before the Last Call is
successful:
PWG Working Drafts to become a PWG Proposed Standard
or versions of a PWG Proposed Standard to become a PWG Draft
Standard.
Several people ought to take over the PWG Process document and work
together
after we agree as to how many steps and Last Calls we want.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Gail Songer [mailto:gsonger@peerless.com]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 13:43
To: pwg-announce@pwg.org
Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> IPPFax Working Group Last Call for "PDF
Image-Streamable Format - PDF/is" and "IPPFAX/1.0 Protocol" to move
to
Proposed
The last "Last Call" incorrectly requested that the two documents in
question be moved to DRAFT. They instead should be moved to
PROPOSED.
The modified "Last Call" is attached.
__________________
Do NOT send comments by a Reply-All to this email. Instead, send
comments
to the ifx@pwg.org DL (to which you must be subscribed).
All,
This is a working group Last Call to move the specifications "PDF
Image-Streamable Format - PDF/is" and "IPPFAX/1.0 Protocol" to
Proposed.
PDF and Word versions of the drafts are posted at the pwg web site
as:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/pwg-ifx-pdfis-P04-021122.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/pwg-ifx-pdfis-P04-021122.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/pwg-ifx-ippfax-P13-021122.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/pwg-ifx-ippfax-P13-021122.pdf
The Last Call notice follows:
This is a formal request for final within the IPPFax Working Group in
order
to move two documents to Proposed Standard. These documents are "PDF
Image-Streamable Format - PDF/is" and the "IPPFAX/1.0 Protocol".
These are
IPP Working Group products, which have been discussed since early
2001. It
is the intent, once all comments have been address, to progress these
documents to Proposed Standard.
Last Calls are for a minimum of 2 weeks. The period for the Working
Group
comments will close on Dec 20, 2002(US Pacific time reference).
The relevant documents are:
Title : IPPFAX/1.0 Protocol
Author(s) : Thomas N. Hastings, Ira McDonald,
Paul
Moore, Gail Songer, John Pulera, Rick Seeler
Filename :
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/pwg-ifx-ippfax-P13-021122.pdf
Pages : 69
Date : 22 Nov 2002
IPPFAX is used to provide a synchronous, reliable exchange of image
Documents between clients and servers. The primary use envisaged of
this
protocol is to provide a synchronous image transmission service for
the
Internet. Contrast this with the Internet FAX protocol specified in
[RFC2305] and [RFC2532] that uses the SMTP mail protocol as a
transport.
The IPPFAX/1.0 protocol is a specialization of the IPP/1.1 [RFC2911],
[RFC2910] protocol supporting a subset of the IPP operations with
increased
conformance requirements in some cases, some restrictions in other
cases,
and some additional REQUIRED attributes. The IPPFAX Protocol uses
the
'ippfax' URL scheme (instead of the 'ipp' URL scheme) in all its
operations. Most of the new attributes defined in this document MAY
be
supported by IPP Printers as OPTIONAL extensions to IPP as well. In
addition, IPPFAX/1.0 REQUIRES the support of the IPP Event
Notification
mechanism [ipp-ntfy] using the 'ippget' Pull Delivery Method
[ipp-get-method].
An IPPFAX Printer object is called a Receiver. A Receiver MUST
support at
least the PDF/is S Profile as specified in [ifx-pdfis] which is
defined for
the 'application/pdf' document format MIME type . A Print System MAY
be
configured to support both the IPPFAX and IPP protocols concurrently,
but
each protocol requires separate Printer objects with distinct URLs.
Title : PDF Image-Streamable Format - PDF/is
Author(s) : Rick Seeler
Filename :
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/pwg-ifx-pdfis-P04-021122.pdf
Pages : 33
Date : 22 Nov 2002
PDF/is is an image document format intended for use by, but not
limited to,
the IPPFAX protocol, which is used to provide a synchronous, reliable
exchange of image Documents between Senders and Receivers. PDF/is
makes
reference to the PDF 1.4 Reference [pdf], which describes the PDF
representation of image data specified by the ITU-T Recommendations
for
black-and-white facsimile (see [T.4], [T.6]), the ISO/IEC
Specifications
for Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous-Tone Still Images
(see
[jpeg]), and Lossy/Lossless Coding of Bi-Level Images (see [jbig2]),
and
the general purpose Flate compression methods (see [RFC1950] and
[RFC1951]).
PDF/is is an image-only, streamable, subset specification of PDF 1.4
[pdf]
and, as such, follows all of the specification requirements of PDF.
Gail Songer
Peerless Systems Corp
650.358.8875
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 14 2003 - 13:42:55 EST