Subject: Re: IPP>PRO proposed tweak to protocol

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 11:16:47 PST

> In today's meeting we decided to propose one last small tweak to the
> IPP protocol.  We decided that I would send out this proposal for all
> of you to read and comment on.
>
> I think that it is an improvement. I hope that you will agree.

Please.  I can't see where this change amounts to a hill of beans, one
way or the other.  I've decoded enough line encodings, with and without
type tags, to be confident that, in the big picture, this doesn't
matter.  What's driving me crazy is to see "the protocol encoding
discussion that wouldn't die."  And each time we get a slightly
different quorum, it takes off in a different direction.  It's chewed up
endless e-mail messages on the mailing list, it took a half day of the
IPP meetings in Nashua, and I'm sure that's only a small sampling.

Let me take another tack -- maybe this will be useful for future
discussion.  We've all been watching the Pathfinder mission (haven't
we?), and we've gotten it drilled into us about how this is NASA's new
way of doing space exploration -- "faster, better, cheaper" or something
thereabouts.  My impression is that, basically, they've tried to be
smarter about what's important, and where they spend their hours and
dollars -- stock components wherever possible; if a solution is good
enough to do the job, move on to the next thing; which investment of
effort is likely to have to greatest benefit.  They're not wasting time
debating what shape of nuts to use -- four sided, six sided; hey,
they're some advantages to seven sided, you know.

Haarrumph!

::  David Kellerman         Northlake Software      503-228-3383
::  [email-masked] Portland, Oregon        fax 503-228-5662

---

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 15:30:26 PDT

>::  David Kellerman         Northlake Software      503-228-3383

David,

as chair of the group I would also like us to reach agreements more quickly
and move on.  On the other hand, the IETF process does not recognize
metings such as the one we held in Nassua to be binding for the IETF WG,
which means that recommendations from such meetings can still be questioned
on the DL.

The impression from our discussions in Nashua and earlier seem to indicate
that there are several "good enough" solutions and that it boils down to
which one is a particular expert's favorite.  Even so, we need to get to a
final consensus.

I want to hear back, on the DL, as quickly as possible where people now
stand, so that we can indeed put this particular part of our specification
to bed and move on.  I would like your responses back no later than Monday,
July 13.

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]