Subject: IPP> More Time for IPP in January

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:20:21 -0500

Carl-Uno wrote:

>Don,
>
>It turmns out that there are two kinds of things that people would like to
>discuss in the January IPP meeting:
>
>1) Start discussion about various extensions that were left out from IPP 1.0.
>   We may also need to discuss any comments from the IESG.
>
>2) Testing and interoperability issues.
>
>I would prefer to deal with the first set of disccussions on the already
>scheduled Wednesday slot, but would like to find out quickly if we could get
>a room for the testing issue discussions on Thursday. I assume that the
>second day meeting would be a smaller crowd, with little or no overlap in
>participation to other PWG activities planned for Thursday.
>
>Please let me know ASAP, as people might have to revise their traveling plans.

My interests would overlap. I'd prefer to adjust agendas to fit all topics
inline.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

---

From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:20:11 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

Don,

I agree with Harry, let's not overlap the agenda items.

I do not anticipate any time required for the Job MIB so that Thursday can
be shared by IPP and SENSE.  I assume that Friday is still reserved for
the Finisher MIB.

	Ron Bergman
	Dataproducts Corp.

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 12:47:39 -0500

> be shared by IPP and SENSE.  I assume that Friday is still reserved for

Sorry, but there will be no SENSE session at the upcoming January
PWG meetings in Hawaii.  :-(

	...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--  JK Martin               |  Email:   [email-masked]          --
--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              --
--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              --
--  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:57:10 PST

Jay,

I assume that you are unable to attend the meeting?  Thats too bad, because
I though we were making some good progress on understanding SENSE.

One of the hot items for IPP is how to do notifications which we deleted 
at the last minute from the Model document, so that we could publish the 
RFC without notification for the time being and work a real solution in
a short time period after publishing V1.0.  The desire is to agree on
something quick enough that IPP implementations can converge on it, rather
than implementors coming up with their own (different) solutions.
We need to avoid the problem in IPP that we see in SNMP where each
implementor does his/her own private trap registration mechanism.  

I hope that we can discuss IPP notification in the IPP meeting, anyway, 
and use as much of SENSE as makes sense.

So others of us need to read the SENSE specs for the IPP discussion.

Tom