[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: FW: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Announcing Last Call for the JobX specifica tion

Thanks Ned, I will stop wondering.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ned.freed@mrochek.com [mailto:ned.freed@mrochek.com]
> Sent: woensdag 10 september 2003 18:57
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Ted Hardie (E-mail); Ned Freed (E-mail); Iesg (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: FW: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Announcing Last Call for the JobX
> specification
> 
> 
> > 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
>