Re: Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-17

[Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Pete and Robert,

My mistake - agreed - (c) should go - and no need for the note about PWG IPP/2.0.
(which will get updated anyway to reference the IETF IPPS spec next year).

Cheers,
- Ira (wearing PWG IPP co-chair and IPP/2.0 co-editor hats)

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: blueroofmusic@xxxxxxxxx
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 12/2/14 11:20 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:

When you suggest saying more, are you suggesting saying more in the
document?
       

I mostly meant the writeup - I expect there will be IESG folks with the same
questions I had.
     

I can do that, sure.

   

    This document updates:
     ...
    c) IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP Version 2.0 Second Edition [PWG5100.12], by
       extending section 4 'IPP Standards' and section 10 'Security
       Considerations'.

This RFC-to-be is updating an IEEE-ISTO PWG document, and that seems
exceptional enough to warrant mention about how the organizations
are coordinating that update.
     

I'd think that's for PWG to address on their side, no?  If they accept
that they can have an IETF RFC formally updating one of their
documents, that's their process, not ours, no?
   

This is to be an IETF document. If the PWG wants to say in one of their documents that PWG5100.12 is updated by this IETF document, that's their business. But *we* can't say in *our* document that we're updating their document. If you need a note, it could say:

      Note: IEEE-ISTO PWG has indicated that they intend to use this
      document as an update to their IPP Version 2.0 Second Edition
      [PWG5100.12], by extending section 4 'IPP Standards' and section
      10 'Security Considerations'.

But (c) should go.

pr

--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478