Subject: IPP> ADM - PWG IPP Phone Conference on 980603, 10:00 AM PDT

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 15:11:38 PDT

PWG IPP Phone Conference on 980603, 10:00 AM PDT
================================================

By now I hope that everybody has seen the feedback information from Keith
Moore. In response to that I want to dedicate the next phone conference to
sort out trivial vs. more complex tasks to resolve the listed issues.

Please read Keith's message beforehand, so we can get straight into the
discussion. You can obvioiusly express views also beforehand on the DL.

Dial-in Information:

Time:     June 3, 10:00 - 12:00 PDT
Phone:    1-800-857 5607
Passcode: cmanros

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: James Walker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 08:24:45 -0500

> PWG IPP Phone Conference on 980603, 10:00 AM PDT

I am curious about process at this point.  Does Keith's response
represent the official IETF response to the IPP submissions?
In other words, if we respond to and satisfy all of his objections,
do we have RFC's?

If so, then, Keith, do you consider all comments that were submitted
during the last call in forming your opinion/comments?  If not, when
do those comments come under consideration?  I do not know how many
submitted comments during last call (presumably there were some, but
they probably went directly to the IESG), but it seems to me that all
negative comments out to be considered by someone.

I have to be honest and admit that I sent my comments directly to
the IESG (without CC:ing the IPP DL), but I guess I had no idea
that all of this would go into such a black hole for such a long
period of time.  If there is interest in discussing comments that
were submitted during the last call, I would consider forwarding
my comments to the list.

curious...
...walker

--
Jim Walker <[email-masked]>
System Architect/DAZEL Wizard
DAZEL Corporation, Austin, TX

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 10:16:56 -0400

I'd like to see Jim Walker's comments posted to the IPP DL,
as well as any others' that have been sent to the IESG
and/or Keith Moore.

The PWG is continually trying to understand how the IETF
works (in terms of process) so that we can better mesh
into its process for future protocol standards.

When one or more persons submits a counter-argument to
a proposed spec, you would think that the governing body
(ie, the IESG) would make at least a minimal attempt to
publically state why (or why not) the argument prevails
in the minds of the governing body.

In short, we'd like to see what the IESG thought of the
counter-arguments to the IPP submission.

	...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: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:57:54 -0400

> In other words, if we respond to and satisfy all of his objections,

This is my review of the document.  Documents have to be reviewed by
the area director before IESG will ballot them.  Based on the review,
the area director either recommends that IESG approve the documents to
be published as RFCs, or sends the document back to the working group
requesting further changes before the document goes to IESG.  In this
case, I've done the latter.

Once these changes are made I'll be in a position to recommend that
IESG approve the documents.  There's no guarantee that the documents
will actually be approved - other IESG folks can still object and
request further changes - but most of the IESG people will trust the
review written by the area director, and either vote "no objection" or
request only editorial changes.  

(For a list of things that frequently hold up RFC approval by IESG,
look at draft-iesg-rfc-checklist-00.txt)

> negative comments out to be considered by someone.

I made an attempt to consider all Last Call comments; however, it's
possible that I've missed some of them.  (Given that Last Call
comments are sometimes sent to any of the IESG, the IETF, the ADs, or
the WG list, and they don't always have any identifying string that
can be used to search an archive, it's difficult for me to be sure
that I've found them all.)

> were submitted during the last call, I would consider forwarding

As long as you're not proposing drastic changes to the protocol, I
recommend that you do so.

Keith