Subject: PWG> Separation of PWG and IETF activities

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 12:06:42 -0400

(Embedded image moved to file: PIC29258.PCX)

To:       [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
cc:
From:     Don Wright @ LEXMARK@LEXMTA
Date:     05/28/97 12:06:42 PM
Subject:  Separation of PWG and IETF activities

Through the course of the last few weeks, there have been
a number of cases where the activities of the PWG and the
IETF have been confused.  In order to clearly separate the
two, I think the following needs to happen:

1) We need to add a disclaimer to the PWG home page clearly
   indicating:

    The contents of these WEB pages reflect work done by
    the people of the Printer Working Group which may or
    may not be submitted to the IETF, IEEE or other standards
    organizations.  Official IETF, IEEE, or other standards
    organization documents, if available, will be found on
    their WEB page, FTP server or other service.

2) We need to clearly separate PWG administrative e-mail from
   IETF working groups technical and administrative e-mail.
   Therefore, according to my understanding, since meetings
   of the PWG are not "official" IETF activities, all future
   PWG meeting notices will ONLY be sent to the PWG mailing
   list and not to the PMP, JMP, or IPP lists.  In contrast,
   the IEEE does sanction the regular meetings of a working
   group.  Since the 1394 printing effort is a study group
   and hopefully soon an official working group, a more
   liberal policy will be applied to the P1394 mailing list.

   I am not sure how to handle the notices of meeting minutes
   but my first pass at it says that PWG meeting minutes
   for IPP, JMP and PMP should not be posted or acknowledged
   on these lists.  (If a meeting "didn't happen" how can
   minutes exist?)  Am I going too far?
To insure the broadest possible distribution, I have posted
this message to all the appropriate mailing lists and I
encourage a BRIEF discussion of this proposal but ONLY on
the PWG mailing list.

Thanks!

Don

*************************************************************
* Don Wright ([email-masked])        Lexmark International *
* Manager                               Strategic Alliances *
* 740 New Circle Rd                     Phone: 606-232-4808 *
* Lexington, KY  40511                    Fax: 606-232-6740 *
*************************************************************

---

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 10:13:40 PDT

>    their WEB page, FTP server or other service.

CBM> No problem with this, but we also need to think about the other pages,
CBM> as many go directly to: http://www.pwg.org/ipp and never see the PWG 
CBM> opening page. We already have a statement of this nature on the IPP page.
CBM> We can improve the text if you are not happy with it. I am also planning
CBM> to update our FAQ document and would put in some further clarification
CBM> about PWG vs. IETF activities in there.

>   liberal policy will be applied to the P1394 mailing list.

CBM> I do not like this proposal much. It means that I will need to keep 
CBM> reading the PWG list in parallell to the IPP list (and will have  
CBM> to filter out a lot of non-IPP stuff in the process.  We would also
CBM> have the same problem with the FTP server.
CBM> I have started including "PWG" in the Agenda and report headings to
CBM> make sure that any newcomer understands that it is not IETF.

>   minutes exist?)  Am I going too far?

CBM> As for minutes, there is absolutely no problem with distributing 
CBM> these over lists like the IPP, as long as they are clearly marked 
CBM> as "PWG".  Other WGs distribute meeting reports from ITU, ISO etc.

>Don

All in all I am not too happy in changing things at this stage. I think we
have already had our battles with the IETF and just now we seem to have 
reached a pieceful level which also works for the people involved in the 
project.  Splitting things up would make things more complicated for the
people trying to do technical work vs. caring about politics. If the IETF 
people should start complaining again, I suppose we might need to follow
your proposal..

My 2 cents.

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: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 17:49:31 -0400

[Replies to [email-masked], please -- unless you want to send private
comments to the IETF APPS ADs.]

> IETF have been confused.  

I agree with this assessment, and am also interested in lessening the
confusion.

Here's IETF's position on the ipp and printmib working groups:

IETF chartered its ipp and printmib working groups with the
understanding that these were exactly like any other IETF working
group -- operating solely under IETF's direction and process rules,
with no other organization speaking on the group's behalf, and
composed of individuals (not vendors or vendor representatives) who
were interested in doing work in this area.  If IETF had approved some
exception to its normal way of doing business, this would have been
explicitly indicated in the working group's charter.

IETF has many ways of cooperating with other organizations which
develop technical specifications.  It may establish liasons with them,
accept external support (e.g. hosting of web pages and mailing lists),
and provide technical assistance to extra-IETF standards efforts when
requested to do so.  IETF's rules allow any individual or organization
to submit documents for publication as Informational and Experimental
RFCs or for consideration as Internet standards.  However, IETF does
not charter other organizations' working groups, nor does it share
administration of its working groups with other organizations.

So how does this affect the web pages, meetings, and administrative
email?

1. Any web pages that are maintained on behalf of printmib or ipp
should represent these groups as IETF working groups, originally
started by PWG and currently operating under IETF's administration.
This should not downplay PWG's role in starting the working groups or
in providing support services for those groups, but should make it
clear that the groups are operated/administered by IETF, according to
IETF's process rules.

2. From IETF's point-of-view, disclaimers are not necessary.  However,
it is desirable to clearly distinguish between IETF working group
documents (agendas, charters, minutes of meetings and teleconferences,
mailing list archives, draft documents, and RFCs), and PWG documents.
This could be as simple as putting them in different directories.

It is possible for a working document or an RFC to be both an IETF
document and a PWG document, as long as it follows both organizations'
rules.

3. IETF has rules regarding working group meetings: they must be
announced, they must be open to all, minutes must be taken and sent to
[email-masked] in a timely fashion, etc.  Nothing in IETF policy
prevents a group from meeting on a regular basis -- indeed this is the
norm -- though ipp and printmib have more frequent meetings than most
groups.

Note that in principle, all IETF working group decisions are made on
the mailing list.  In practice, this means that any decisions made
outside of the mailing list -- whether in a face to face meeting,
teleconference, or bar discussion -- must be reviewed by the list, and
are subject to change if there are significant objections on the list.

4. There's no problem with having PWG and IETF meetings at the same
location, at slightly different times, with many of the same people in
attendance -- just as long as it's very clear which meetings are
which.  There is plenty of precedent for this within IETF.

5. IETF doesn't place many limits on mailing list discussion, other
than expecting its working group chairs to keep the discussion on
topic.  If the chairs of an IETF working group believe that a PWG
meeting notice or minutes is of interest to that group, there's no
reason why it should not be sent to the group's mailing list, as long
as IETF activities are distinguished from PWG activities.

6. An active PWG group and an active IETF group should not share a
mailing list.  It's too easy for the discussions to get confused.

Keith