Re: FW: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Announcing Last Call for the JobX specification

[ned.freed@mrochek.com]

> Do you guys get/see these?

Yes I do.

> If not, should we worry? Do we not have the base IPP specs as IETF owned?
 
I think we should rejoice. Sure, we "own" the IPP base specifications as well
as a bunch of IPP extensions. But nothing prevents others from building on top
of this protocol foundation, or any other protocol foundation we have produced
for that matter. We might as well complain that other people build protocols
that run on top of TCP...

Besides, I really don't think we have the expertise to review these sorts of
very esoteric extensions intended in most cases, as far as I can tell, for very
high end printers and print shops. Indeed, if you examine the various IPP
extensions we've reviewed, with the exception of notifications (which are in
effect an entirely new protocol) we have had very little to say in our review
comments.

I will also add that the PWG seems to be operating well within the IPP
framework in the work they are doing that I've seen. And as I pointed out in
some earlier email, the same cannot be said for what 3GPP and 3GPP2 have done
to our email standards. The list of fragrant violations of both the letter and
intent of various IETF email standards in their specifications is long and
growing. And the stuff they are doing is causing serious real-world
interoperability problems.

So if you want to worry about someone making a total hash of IETF application
protocols, you should be worrying about 3GPP and 3GPP2, not the PWG.

				Ned