Any resemblance to the IETF process (or not) is of little significance in
my opinion. I would prefer not to compare in the ultimate (updated) PWG
process document... but if it helps our discussion, for now... ok.
You clarifications about versioning are good. Thanks.
Do you really mean to imply that a Draft Standard cannot bump version? I
was not thinking of it this way.
I disagree that we need two levels of interop. We should have further
discussion on this from a wider audience.
One more thought from me. The process, as written, pertains (and has been
followed) well for the formation of new working groups (IFX, XP, SM...)
but has not been followed well for what I would call "extension documents"
(mainly IPP extensions). Is this just an enforcement problem or should the
process actually be amended with possible streamlining for extensions (ex.
jump right to Draft last call from Working Draft)?
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
01/14/2003 10:54 AM
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "Hastings, Tom N"
<hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
cc: Gail Songer <gsonger@peerless.com>, pwg@pwg.org, "Seeler,
Rick" <rseeler@adobe.com>
Subject: RE: PWG> PWG Proposed Standard versus PWG Draft
Standard
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>
Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org
12/11/2002 06:01 PM
To: pwg@pwg.org
cc: Gail Songer <gsonger@peerless.com>, "Seeler, Rick"
<rseeler@adobe.com>
Subject: PWG> PWG Proposed 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 - 15:01:43 EST