Ira and others,
I don't agree that the IETF would object to let the IPP WG continue to
elevate IPP to the next level.
At one stage, probably some 18 months or so ago, Ned Freed asked me if we
planned to continue the IPP work to Draft Standard status. At that stage, we
were still waiting for various IPP extension documents to get through, so I
told him it was too early to decide.
The overall expectation in the IETF is that Proposed Standards will continue
to become Draft Standards and eventually Standards if they can prove:
1) their persistance as actually working
2) being implemented in a number of independently developed products, and
3) interworking properly according to the specs.
The two major stumbling blocks that we have had, and problaby will continue
to have, are the IETF requirements for security, suitable for on application
in the worldwide Internet rather than just intranets, and the terribly slow
review and acceptance process in the IESG, where IPP has been given a low
priority.
If we wanted to make any significant extensions to the IPP basic
arhitecture, we would have to start over at the Proposed Standard stage one
more time, which would slow down the progress to Draft Standard even
further, unless we limit the changes to just weed out functions that are not
commonly implemented.
Carl-Uno
Carl-Uno Manros
700 Carnegie Street #3724
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Tel +1-702-617-9414
Fax +1-702-617-9417
Mob +1-702-525-0727
Email carl@manros.com
Web www.manros.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pwg@pwg.org [mailto:owner-pwg@pwg.org]On Behalf Of McDonald,
> Ira
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 8:30 AM
> To: 'don@lexmark.com'; McDonald, Ira
> Cc: Harry Lewis; pwg@pwg.org; thrasher@lexmark.com
> Subject: RE: PWG> Process
>
>
> Hi Don,
>
> I see your point. And agree with it. Standards shouldn't
> have higher status than their normative dependencies.
>
> But I think that IPP is maybe a "special case". The PWG has
> (by an apparent strong concensus) simply abandoned submitting
> printing industry standards to the IETF. Most of all, this
> is because a string of IETF Applications Area Directors have
> had no interest in IPP, Printer MIB, etc.
>
> The Printer MIB v2 has finally been adopted because it was
> (lucky enough to be) a MIB - so Bert Wijnen and the very
> competent IETF Ops and Mgmt Area "MIB experts" took over
> and helped us move it forward.
>
> Unfortunately, IPP remains stuck in IETF Applications Area.
>
> Of course, we could try to recharter the IETF IPP WG with
> the stated purpose of advancing to Draft Standard (there
> is precedent for such a recharter). But I don't think
> that the IETF is at all likely to grant the new charter.
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira McDonald
> High North Inc
>
> PS - It really pains me to be arguing on the "wrong" side
> of this issue. But I believe that IPP is an important
> unifying standard in the printing industry.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:16 AM
> To: McDonald, Ira
> Cc: Harry Lewis; pwg@pwg.org; thrasher@lexmark.com
> Subject: RE: PWG> Process
>
>
>
> Ira:
>
> If it is truly the case the IPP never advances beyond "Proposed"
> why should
> the extensions advance beyond "Candidate"? If the base upon which the PWG
> extensions are built has not been proven to be equivalent to a
> PWG Standard
> (for whatever reason) how can the extension be any better? If your house
> is built to the highest possible standards to resist a tornado but it is
> built on a foundation of jello, would you call it a tornado resistant
> house?
>
> While I'm not excited by the idea, we could define some special exception
> process by which this rule could be suspended. Only some kind of
> very high
> bar would be appropriate... 75% approval of the membership? 80%? 100%?
>
> **********************************************
> Don Wright don@lexmark.com
>
> Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
> Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
> f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org
>
> Director, Alliances & Standards
> Lexmark International
> 740 New Circle Rd
> Lexington, Ky 40550
> 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
> **********************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> on 06/05/2003 11:06:53 AM
>
> To: "'don@lexmark.com'" <don@lexmark.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
> <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
> cc: Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com>, pwg@pwg.org, thrasher@lexmark.com
> Subject: RE: PWG> Process
>
>
> Hi Don,
>
> OK, I accept your suggestion that PWG Standard is "roughly"
> equivalent to IETF Draft Standard (in requirements to be met).
>
> But IETF IPP/1.1 (RFC 2910/2911) will most likely _never_
> advance from IETF Proposed Standard to IETF Draft Standard,
> which would mean that no IEEE/ISTO PWG spec for IPP extensions
> can ever advance beyond PWG Candidate Standard.
>
> The point I'm concerned about is standards in OTHER bodies
> that are never going to advance shouldn't hold back PWG
> standards, I think.
>
> Comments?
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira McDonald
> High North Inc
>
> PS - Note that for IPP/1.1 (RFC 2910/2911) to advance to
> IETF Draft Standard status, the IETF IPP WG would have to
> be rechartered and a set of thorough (EVERY feature) tests
> of interoperability would have to be performed, written up,
> and submitted to the IETF. Wildly unlikely...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:44 PM
> To: McDonald, Ira
> Cc: 'don@lexmark.com'; Harry Lewis; pwg@pwg.org; thrasher@lexmark.com
> Subject: RE: PWG> Process
>
>
>
> Ira:
>
> I used the word "roughly" with intent.
>
> The PWG should decide whether PWG Standard is "roughly" equivalent to IETF
> Draft Standard or to IETF Internet Standard.
>
> Looking at the requirements, I believe IETF Draft Standard is the
> equivalent of PWG Standard.
>
> **********************************************
> Don Wright don@lexmark.com
>
> Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
> Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
> f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org
>
> Director, Alliances & Standards
> Lexmark International
> 740 New Circle Rd
> Lexington, Ky 40550
> 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
> **********************************************
>
>
>
>
> "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> on 06/04/2003 03:38:09 PM
>
> To: "'don@lexmark.com'" <don@lexmark.com>, Harry Lewis
> <harryl@us.ibm.com>
> cc: pwg@pwg.org, thrasher@lexmark.com
> Subject: RE: PWG> Process
>
>
> Hi Don,
>
> All very good comments. I agree with all of your proposed additions
> and wording changes.
>
> I'm curious about your comment (18) below. It makes sense (on one
> level), but would mean that until IETF IPP/1.1 (RFC 2910/2911) moves
> to Internet Standard status (after going from current Proposed
> Standard status to future Draft Standard status), no PWG IPP spec
> could ever move higher than PWG Candidate Standard. Right?
>
> Is this desirable, given that the IETF IPP WG is moribund and will
> presumably close permanently in the not too distant future?
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira McDonald
> High North Inc
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:10 PM
> To: Harry Lewis
> Cc: pwg@pwg.org; thrasher@lexmark.com
> Subject: Re: PWG> Process
>
> <...snip...>
>
> 18) Clause 4.7, Page 10, line 355: add "PWG extensions to non-PWG
> standards
> cannot attain PWG Standard status until the base standard has attained the
> rough equivalent of PWG Standard status in the other organization."
>
> <...snip...>
>
> **********************************************
> Don Wright don@lexmark.com
>
> Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
> Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
> f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org
>
> Director, Alliances & Standards
> Lexmark International
> 740 New Circle Rd
> Lexington, Ky 40550
> 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
> **********************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com>@pwg.org on 05/21/2003 07:04:12 PM
>
> Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org
>
>
> To: pwg@pwg.org
> cc:
> Subject: PWG> Process
>
>
> There is really no last call process for the process document ;-). Please
> review and prepare to try and close this formally at the Portland plenary.
> If you can't make Portland please share you comments ahead of time so they
> may be incorporated.
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030414.pdf
> ----------------------------------------------
> Harry Lewis
> Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> http://www.pwg.org
> IBM Printing Systems
> http://www.ibm.com/printers
> 303-924-5337
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 05 2003 - 15:25:55 EDT