Subject: IPP> ADM - IPP Documents for the IETF

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 15:16:07 PDT

In our PWG IPP phone conference today we discussed how to organize our
various emerging IPP documents, based on the discussions held in the PWG
meeting in San Diego last week, which BTW resulted in a strong
recommendation to do our first transfer mapping to HTTP 1.1 (warts and all,
more about that later).

As we need to update our IETF charter text in the near future, I would like
to get the groups reaction on the following proposal for our series of IPP
documents to be produced.

We have a number of basic standards track documents that are less likely to
require change once they are agreed:

IPP Model and Semantics
IPP Security
IPP Directory Schema
IPP Encoding of Operations

All of the above documents should contain transport independent information.

We would then need a transfer specific IPP Profile document (on the
standards track), that would reference the 4 documents listed above:

Profile for running IPP over HTTP 1.1 (this would include some of HTTP
specific security protocol recommendations).

In addition, we have the two informational documents that are NOT on the
standards track:

Internet Printing Requirements
Mappings between IPP and RFC 1179

We probably do not need to reference these explicitly from the standards
track documents?

Can I get your reactions on whether these are the right documents to be
listed?

An alternative that has been discussed is to merge the IPP Encoding of
Operations with the Profile for running IPP over HTTP 1.1 document. Do we
gain a lot by keeping these as two separate documents?

Thanks,

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: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 09:16:35 +0200

Carl-Uno,
in your message, you give a total of seven documents:

IPP Model and Semantics
IPP Security
IPP Directory Schema
IPP Encoding of Operations
Profile for running IPP over HTTP 1.1
Internet Printing Requirements
Mappings between IPP and RFC 1179

At the moment there are 3 internet-drafts in the I-D store:

draft-ietf-ipp-req-00.txt
draft-ietf-ipp-model-00.txt
draft-ietf-ipp-dir-schema-00.txt

None of these have been updated since Memphis.
I really can't tell whether you have the right set of documents
unless you have some documents; the organization of these documents
is in fact less important than their content.

(And no, PDF-format documents on a non-IETF fileserver are NOT
considered WG documents available for public review!)

About the HTTP issue:
You got serious pushback in Memphis, and not only from us, that basing
IPP on HTTP was going to get you into trouble that you could avoid by
doing a "core" protocol and a "gateway from HTTP to IPP" rather than
doing straight "IPP over HTTP".
I think you are choosing a course that will seriously hamper the
future deployment and utilization of the IPP protocol, for reasons
that have much to do with marketing/politics and little to do with
sound engineering.
That is Not a Good Thing; you will probably require at least a
document called "Why We Shot Ourselves In The Foot With HTTP" or
equivalent, giving the *engineering* justifications for the choice.

               Harald A

---

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 10:08:40 PDT

>draft-ietf-ipp-dir-schema-00.txt

We actually also had one on Security as well, which the IETF secretariat
refused to list under IPP, because it was not in the Charter, but I have
been over the details about that with Keith earlier.

>None of these have been updated since Memphis.

You are right, but we have now had sufficiently much discussion and
technical contributions for the editors to be able to pull it all together
in a series of new drafts. I only wanted to make sure that we have
agreement about which documents to produce and make sure that a list of
them get into an updated version of the IPP Charter so that we do not run
into the same hassle as we had before Memphis.  We expect to have a new set
of I-Ds ready for IETF publication within the next 2 - 3 weeks.

>is in fact less important than their content.

I will bear that in mind, but we are to some extent talking hen and egg here.

>considered WG documents available for public review!)

You may not be following our list and archive, but note that most
everything is now supplied in both TXT and PDF formats, both in the FTP
archive and on our IPP web pages.

>About the HTTP issue:

I knew that you would not be happy about this, but it seems to be where the
majority of the list members are taking us.

>equivalent, giving the *engineering* justifications for the choice.

I will try to write up the rationale properly before calling for an
official IETF consensus on this.

Believe or not, I think we are making significant progress.

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 00:17:24 +0200

Carl-Uno,
I've checked with Steve Coya, and he's quite adamant that he's
never authorized refusing a request for an I-D when it came from
the group chair.

So there must have been some misunderstanding here.
Please publish all the documents that you want as I-Ds.
I rather like the list of documents, in fact, apart from your
arcane choice of base protocol to send operations over!

                  Harald A