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: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
