Subject: Re: SDP> RE: IPP> Using OID access with IPP/SDP

From: "Scott Isaacson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 09:09:27 -0600

>>> Randy Turner <[email-masked]> 04/28 12:20 AM >>>
> <snip>
>
>I would add two other possible options...others on the DL are welcome to
>chime in with their own options.
>
>4) Do nothing (for now). Deploy IPP 1.0 and let real world requirements
>start accumulating. I really prefer this option, since I think we are
>REALLY jumping the gun with this effort. With recent comments on the DL, I
>think its very important that we concentrate on getting IPP 1.0 "out the
>door" and deployed. We shouldn't appear to be splintering our focus. I do
>think we need to consider notifications for IPP, but beyond that I would
>say any presumptions on our part about what else is "needed" by customers
>is very premature.

I have benefited from this discussion about MIB access, management, submission,
SDP, etc. but I too sincerely hope that none of this discussion defocuses us from
getting IPP/1.0 out the door and widely deployed.  I don't get the feeling from this
discussion that "we have done the wrong thing with IPP/1.0" or "we have painted
ourselves into a corner".  I get the feeling that there is good debate going on about
the future relationships of various things that sometimes start to overlap.  The discussion
has been good.  

My biggest frustration is with the lack of forward motion by the IESG
on IPP/1.0 in a timely manner, but that does not indicated a problem with the
concept and model of IPP/1.0.  The only comments that I have heard
that cause the IESG any concern seem to come in on the mapping and use 
of HTTP/1.1.

So I don't necessarily want to "do nothing (for now)", but if that is what
it takes to show solidarity behind what we have done so far, then so be it.  I
always fall back to: "If you find that you have a widespead, well adopted
protocol that is ubiquitously implemented and deployed and you find it difficult
to rev to the next version because of the widespread deployment, you have
done a GOOD thing.  It must have been the right thing at the right time to
fill a need."  It is much better to grow from simple to complex and meet the
real needs of the growth path, not the proposed needs of the proposed
growth path.

Scott