Hi,
Remember - the IETF _owns_ the copyright on IPP/1.1.
If the PWG writes standards that normatively reference IPP/1.1,
then those PWG standards MUST normatively reference the IETF's
RFC 2910/2911.
It's out of the question for the PWG to infringe the IETF's
current IPP/1.1 copyright.
So shall we:
(1) Request copyright transfer for all IPP specs from IETF;
<or>
(2) Try to progress the various IPP specs (quite a few) in
the IETF Process - which will be VERY slow
Cheers,
- Ira
-----Original Message-----
From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner@NetSilicon.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:24 PM
To: Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us; imcdonald@sharplabs.com;
Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us; don@lexmark.com
Cc: harryl@us.ibm.com; pwg@pwg.org; thrasher@lexmark.com
Subject: RE: PWG> Process
If I am add by 2 cents...
Although I understand and agree with the apparent intent of Don' s
suggestion Process Document addition that started this thread, I suggest
that a statement in the process document that requires a "roughly
equivalent" level, effectively to be subjectivly determined, is meaningless
on one side and a potential cause of future arguments on the other. A
mapping of what is considered equivalent levels to applicable standards
organizations would be necessary.
Although I agree that IPP may be a special case, the intent of the
provision is, to paraphrase Don, to make sure that a PWG standard is based
on a stable foundation. Therefore, I also agree with Ira that doing nothing
with the IPP RFC's is undesirable.
Carl-Uno suggests that they can be advanced in the IETF. But can we tolerate
the time delays? We had previously considered the idea of attempting the
transfer of these documents from the IETF. Was there any action done on
that?
So there does not appear to be a good solution. Which is the least bad?
Assuning that that is the liklehood of the RFC's being reclassified historic
is small, the PWG defining its maturity level terms equivalent to the IETF
terms seems least painful. If, in the future, we believe that a IETF
document, at whatever level teh IETH defines it, is not sufficiently mature
for our purposes, we would simply not reference it.
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us [mailto:Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us]
Sent: Thu 6/5/2003 6:14 PM
To: imcdonald@sharplabs.com; Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us;
don@lexmark.com
Cc: harryl@us.ibm.com; pwg@pwg.org; thrasher@lexmark.com
Subject: RE: PWG> Process
Ira,
It seems to me that providing the printing community with an
accurate indication of the maturity of the standards would be
extremely helpful. The PWG is the author of these standards
and the only organization that can accurately access the
current level of maturity. The IETF can certainly provide
input for some issues, but it is still up to the PWG to
determine the interoperability and acceptance of all IPP
functions.
I believe we have only two reasonable choices:
1. Define a PWG maturity level for the IETF documents.
2. Ignore maturity altogether and let the market rule.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:54 AM
To: 'Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us'; McDonald, Ira; don@lexmark.com
Cc: harryl@us.ibm.com; pwg@pwg.org; thrasher@lexmark.com
Subject: RE: PWG> Process
Hi Ron,
I'm not sure how we practically apply your suggestion, but...
The standards status of all IETF RFCs is regularly published
in the RFC xx00 series "Internet Official Protocol Standards",
most recently RFC 3300/STD 1 (November 2002). The very newest
RFCs have their standards status listed in the RFC Index at:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc-index.txt
I don't think it's helpful for the PWG to "relabel" the
maturity level of IETF RFCs. I think the PWG can either:
(a) Ask the IETF to transfer the copyright to PWG and allow
republication of the entire IPP/1.1 and extensions set
of RFCs (many);
<or>
(b) Work to advance the IPP RFCs within the IETF Process;
<or>
(c) Do nothing and leave the IPP RFCs in long-term limbo.
I don't much like alternative (c).
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us [mailto:Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:09 PM
To: imcdonald@sharplabs.com; don@lexmark.com
Cc: harryl@us.ibm.com; pwg@pwg.org; thrasher@lexmark.com
Subject: RE: PWG> Process
Ira and Don,
I believe it is time for the PWG to assign unique maturity
levels to IETF IPP standards. The IETF is in no position to
judge the level of an IPP standard and certainly does not
have the manpower or interest to do so. The PWG needs to
take full ownership of these standards and provide an
official position as to their maturity level.
I am not trying to berate the IETF by proposing this solution.
Printing standards are not within the main focus of the IETF
and they have published the documents primarily for the
benefit of the internet community. Their focus during the
standards review was concentrated towards network issues
only. If the IETF agrees it is a standards track document,
the PWG should then decide upon its 'real' maturity.
Note also that the IETF RFCs do not indicate the maturity
directly. You must go to a different document (I believe
this is only on line) to determine the current level of
maturity.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
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 - 21:18:38 EDT