On Apr 6, 2012, at 10:34 AM, "Petrie, Glen" <glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com> wrote:
> single controller (Print Servcie?); from a reference model or architecture point of view it should not matter if there is such an entity providing this function. This means your simple diagram reduces to
>>> Cloud Print Provider
> Client <---> Cloud Print Service <---> Printer
I would be OK with this as long as we clarify in the terminology/model discussion that Printer can be Physical or Logical printer (like IPP/SM) and then provide an explicit example/use case where a Logical Printer acts as the interface with the Cloud Print Provider for an existing Physical Printer. This addresses the canonical "printer proxy" configuration that is used for Google Cloud Print and other cloud printing solutions and preserves our ability to hand-wave the implementation details between the proxy/manager and physical printer.
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...