The test I was thinking about applying to work within the Cloud imaging group would be:
"Would the PWG need to be doing this if "The Cloud" didn't exist ?"
> The Cloud Imaging group is concerned with adapting the PWG Semantic Model to Cloud-based environments, not with defining the full suite of protocols/interfaces needed to create a Cloud-based solution.
Regarding your earlier email statement (above), I was under the impression that there was nothing that needed to be "adapted". Meaning, we would like a Cloud printer to behave pretty much the same way we would any other print service (like on an internal enterprise network). This was based on a discussion at the last face-to-face meeting ( I believe ).
i.e., we want to be able to print, cancel, suspend, list jobs, etc. with a cloud printer the same as we do today with "local" print services.
In the previous discussion I was referring to (sorry, I can't remember the exact timeframe), when we "factored out" things that were "cloud-specific", it was those technology bits that we had previously decided to defer and/or not address.
On Sep 24, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Michael Sweet wrote:
>> On 2012-09-24, at 4:35 PM, Randy Turner <rturner at amalfisystems.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>> Awhile back, there was an email exchange that indicated much of what we were doing with job tickets, mapping, etc. was not specific to "The Cloud", and that it might make sense to concentrate these activities solely within the IPP group.
>>>> Has this occurred? Or will this occur?
>> First, the Mapping spec is directly applicable to current Cloud Printing solutions as it defines how to go from existing job ticket and capability formats to the PWG Semantic Model.
>> Second, since the Mapping spec deals with the Semantic Model, it would not be appropriate for the IPP WG to take the lead (and indeed the IPP WG has enough work to keep it busy for a couple years at least...)
>> What you might be confusing this with is the parallel work on the Cloud Printing Model and Requirements and IPP Shared Infrastructure Extensions (IPPSIX). One of the next things we will be doing in the IPP WG is IPPSIX, which provides a concrete binding of the Cloud Printing Model and Requirements. Both will likely be based on the operations and attributes/elements defined during the early Cloud Printing BOFs including proposals from Ira McDonald and refinements (and a WSDL binding) from Pete Zehler.
>>> The past conversation seemed to suggest that the Cloud Imaging group should be focused on activities that have specific Cloud application and not spend time on work that is not cloud-specific.
>> The Cloud Imaging group is concerned with adapting the PWG Semantic Model to Cloud-based environments, not with defining the full suite of protocols/interfaces needed to create a Cloud-based solution.
>> So right now we are working on Job Ticket Mapping and how a Printer interfaces with a Cloud solution to query jobs, fetch jobs, and report configuration/state. The former is important because different Cloud Printing solutions use different/multiple job ticket formats, while the latter is important because we don't currently define how an output device interfaces with a print service.
>>> I would really like to see this happen sooner than later…I noticed on the Cloud Imaging slide deck for the upcoming meeting that there still seems to be a lot of work going on that seems to be "not" cloud specific.
>> Such as?
> 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...