Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> FW: Diff files for IPP> Notification Documents

From: "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:18:26 -0700

Hi,

Bob Herriot has just finished doing minimal required
changes to the three IPP Notification documents
(requirements, base, and IPPGET delivery method)
to respond to the pending IETF reviewer comments.

If you don't like these semantics, this is your LAST
chance to change them for IPP, before they move onto
the IETF 'standards track'.  Note that WIMS currently
supports leases (for example) via different attributes.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Robert
Herriot
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 6:22 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Diff files for IPP> Documents 

I have uploaded .doc and .pdf files.

Each file is the diff of the current Word file that is the source for the
latest IETF draft against the Word file that was the source of the preceding
IETF draft.

ipp-notification-requirements-040621-rev.pdf
ipp-notify-get-040621-rev.pdf
ipp-not-spec-040621-rev.pdf

and similar for .doc files.

They are in the usual pwg/ipp/new_NOT directory.
.

Bob Herriot

---

From: Robert Herriot <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:26:32 -0700

I'm sorry that my reply is on pwg-announce. However, I need to respond to 
the Ira's email that he sent via pwg-announce.

I hope that the PWG members are willing to accept the notification 
documents in their current form and will not request any changes or 
enhancements (small typos and errors excepted).  In their current form, 
they are likely to be published as RFCs soon because IETF reviewers have 
made comments about the documents and I have made corrections that address 
IETF reviewers' suggestions.  If I make changes beyond those requested by 
the IETF reviewers, there are two major problems.
First, I don't have time to make major changes and no one else does 
either.  I have offered to do only a small amount of pro-bono 
work.  Second, the IETF review process would have to start all over again, 
and the reviewers have made it clear that they don't want to review the 
documents again. Unless these documents progress in essentially their 
current form,  they run a very high risk of never being published by the 
IETF.

I believe that it is best for the PWG to ensure that the IETF publish these 
3 documents, and that means that they must be published in their current 
form. If PWG wants to make extensions to these documents, such extensions 
should be published in new IEEE-ISTO documents via some new process that is 
a successor to the process that produced these documents.

Bob Herriot

At Tuesday 6/22/2004 07:18 PM, McDonald, Ira wrote:
>..