Subject: IPP> Consensus on sending our drafts to the IESG

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 18:40:30 PST

The PWG has just held a meeting on IPP. In that meeting which also had a
phone conference, which together covered most of the active IPP
participants, the subject of Paul Moore's and Josh Cohen's proposal to
evaluate new alternatives for the protocol specification was discussed.

Although the proposal found some support and to have some technical merit,
it was clear that a considerable majority were not convinced that the
solutions proposed would offer a better alternative to our current solution
and preferred to go ahead with our current drafts without further delays.

I therefore believe that we have enough consensus to proceed with our
earlier plans to send the IPP Model & Semantics and the Protocol
Specification drafts to the IESG with the recommendation as Proposed
Standards, and our remaining three drafts as Informational RFCs.

I wish to see your reconfirmation of this consensus expressed on the IPP DL.

I plan to send the drafts to the IESG next Friday on February 6th, 1998.

Regards,

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: "Jeffrey D. Schnitzer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:08:35 -0500

The follow message from Roger Debry <[email-masked]> was
misdirected to <[email-masked]>:

Subject: Re: IPP> Consensus on sending our drafts to the IESG
   Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:00:23 -0500
   From: Roger K Debry <[email-masked]>
     To: <[email-masked]>

I agree with the majority here and believe that we should
proceed with our plans to submit our work to the IESG as it
stands.

Roger K deBry
Co-author of IPP Model and Semantics Document
Senior Technical Staff Member
Architecture and Technology
IBM Printing Systems
email: [email-masked]
phone: 1-303-924-4080

---

From: "Steve Zilles" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 18:16:22 PST

After having read the discussion on whether to proceed with the existing
protocol I-D or to consider an alternative proposal, I vote to send the
existing drafts to the IESG.

Although, I am sympathetic to an XML based proposal, the discussion has
convinced me that

1) There is no concrete XML proposal on the table and it is not clear
when one might come into existance. Therefore, we would not be able to
meet the milestones for the Working Group.

2) There is a need for the W3C XML Working Group and a related group to
define a data typeing mechanism for XML to be able to express the IPP
Model data. Although the IPP WG could do this, it is unlikely that it
would match whatever is defined for XML as a whole and much of the
synergy with XML would be lost. There is some indication that the task
of defining a data description for XML may be undertaken in the near
future. 

3) The IPP had been structured so that the Model is independent of the
protocol used to transport Model data. Therefore, it is always possible
to define an XML based protocol if that seems to important to do at some
time in the future. 
        
        Steve
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen N. Zilles               |   e-mail: [email-masked]
Adobe Systems Incorporated      |
Mailstop W14                    |   tel: (work) (408) 536-4766
345 Park Avenue                 |        (Admin)(408) 536-4658
San Jose, CA 95110-2704         |   fax:        (408) 537-4042
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: James Walker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:55:19 -0600

I am opposed to sending the current drafts of the Model & Semantics
document and Protocol Specification document to the IESG for last
call.  As I expressed in Maui, I believe that we have too many
issues with the current drafts, with the XML encoding issue only
being one of them.

I would also agree with Josh Cohen's comments... my recollection
was that we agreed that we had a "rough consensus", and that the
minority position on XML encoding would at least be noted as we
moved forward in the process.  In effect, we agreed to disagree,
with the discussion moving on to take place at the next higher level,
IESG last call.  I presume that the IESG can make the determination
if we have sufficient consensus to move this on to Proposed Standard.

...walker

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

---

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:15:22 PST

At 11:55 AM 2/4/98 PST, James Walker wrote:

>My recollection

Jim,

You and Josh are right about the:

>>"rough consensus", and that the
>>moved forward in the process"rough consensus", and that the
>moved forward in the process.

I am sorry if this was not clear in my earlier message to the group.
I will make sure that this is crisp and clear in the message to the IESG.

I hope that everybody on the IPP DL have also understood the clarification
on this subject. More details can be found in the minutes circulated
yesterday.

Carl-Uno
Carl-Uno Manros