W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 1999

RE: HTTP Extensions Framework status?

From: Manros, Carl-Uno B <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 11:36:35 -0800
Message-ID: <918C79AB552BD211A2BD00805F15CE8502514D52@x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es.xerox.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" <joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, "Yaron Goland (Exchange)" <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, 'Patrik Fältström' <paf@swip.net>, Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>, discuss@apps.ietf.org, "Peter Ford (Exchange)" <peterf@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
See one comment on the practical use of Experimental in an
APPS project recently.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 7:50 AM
> To: Josh Cohen (Exchange)
> Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Yaron Goland (Exchange); 'Patrik
> Fältström'; Scott Lawrence; moore@cs.utk.edu; discuss@apps.ietf.org;
> Peter Ford (Exchange)
> Subject: Re: HTTP Extensions Framework status? 
> snip, snip
> > Maybe all APPS standards should have experimental, or an
> > equivalent, as a necessary first step in getting to standards
> > track proposed.
> I've wondered about this - maybe groups should have to publish
> as Experimental, and implement the protocol, before going to
> Proposed.  It might get people focused on "running code" sooner
> rather than later, and some groups need that.  I'd like to see 
> a few groups try it before recommending it for everyone in APPS.  

--- snip, snip --- 

The IPP WG produced a set of drafts which were sent to the IESG in 
March 1998. After some comments from ADs, slightly revised drafts 
were given to the IESG again in July 1998. These documents were 
processed by the IESG in early 1990 and published as Experimental
RFCs in April 1999. By that time, the IPP WG in collaboration with
the Printer Working Group (PWG), had held an interoperability
event with more than 30 vendors. A new set of drafts were sent to 
the IESG in early July 1999 with a request to have them published
as RFCs. The only crucial differences from the July 1998 drafts
was the introduction of the ipp:// scheme (as a synonym for
http://...:631) and swapping SSL3 for TLS, which had been done
in between. By now, some 30 products from 20 vendors are
in the market place. An optimistic outlook is to see the RFCs
for the Proposed Standard some time first quarter of the
next millennium.

Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 14:37:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:08:06 UTC