Subject: IPP> REQ: New Requirements Document

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:31:47 -0400

I have posted a new version of the Requirements Document on the ftp server.
The
following files are now there....

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_REQ/draft-ietf-ipp-req-971010-rev.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_REQ/draft-ietf-ipp-req-971010.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_REQ/draft-ietf-ipp-req-971010.txt

The naming convention should be obvious.

I need any last minute corrections immediately.  Please remember that
this is a requirements document and not a design specification.  I do
no believe it must exactly match the first version of the protocol.  It is
OK to define a set of requirements in one document and choose to
implement a subset or a superset in the implementation documents.
In my mind, any variations from the requirements should be specified
in the implementation documents.  The requirements did not change,
an informed, intelligent decision was made to not address some of
the requirements in the first implementation.  In order to move forward
with V2.0, we should not lose the original requirements by removing
them from the document.

In light of my previous diatribe, please don't ask me to do much more
than correct a spelling or formatting error in the document.

(Jay:  as usual please correct my errors in the URL -- lack of sleep
doesn't help in typing long lines of characters and slashes!!)

Thanks!

Don

**********************************************
* Don Wright                 [email-masked] *
* Manager, Strategic Alliances and Standards *
* Lexmark International                      *
* 740 New Circle Rd                          *
* Lexington, Ky 40550                        *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax)    *
**********************************************