My comments follow ...
---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 12/04/96 06:26
ipp-owner @ pwg.org
12/03/96 04:49 PM
To: ipp @ pwg.org at internet
Subject: Re: IPP> BOF Presentation Comments
I tend to agree with Bob that we need a number of clear and crisp bullits
that convey the right kind of message, while trying to avoid formulations
that could be misinterpreted.
<<RKD>> I also agree ...
What I hope to get out of the requirements presentation is a clear
explanation of the kind of scenarios that we try to address. Would it be
possible to re-use some of the scenario figures from the original IBM
document to lighten this up a bit with some graphics rather than just plain
text bullits? We have 30 minutes allocated to this part of the agenda and
3 slides seem a bit scarce anyway. If we need more material, I suggest that
we present the text from our proposed IETF Charter (although there is a
<<RKD>> I agree ... of course, I'm a picture oriented
<<RKD>> person. Probably comes from reading too many
<<RKD>> comic books as a kid. My personal presentation
<<RKD>> style is to use pictures and talk the words. Of
<<RKD>> course you want people to walk away with a set
<<RKD>> of words, but that is why we published a req'ts
Also, I expected us to cover why we are not building on the old RFC 1179
(the X/Open material has now been posted to the PWG server by Tom Hastings),
and possibly also why we are not explicitly considering using the SVR LOC
solution. If these subjects do not get covered here, I suggest they needs to
get covered in Scott's presentation afterwards. (I consider it better to
grab the bull by the horns right away, rather than wait until it is brought
up by one of the BOF visitors).
At 02:02 PM 12/3/96 PST, you wrote:
>I have reviewed the 3 foils and I have the following suggestions.
>>I still think that the first foil is too complicated, and I am not sure
>I even understand the meaning of half of it. I have tried to simplify it
>into an easy-to-read bullet format while keeping the intent that I
>>My suggestion for the first foil is:
> o uses World Wide Web tools, programs, servers and networks.
> o works for printers that are attached locally or via a network.
> o uses HTTP servers and browsers to provide print operations which include
<<RKD>> We should not preclude new print clients specifically
<<RKD>> written to provide IPP function, nor the imbedding of
<<RKD>> IPP support directly into the operating systems.
> o browsing for printers
<<RKD>> I prefer locating printers based on attributes
> o printing jobs
> o cancelling jobs
> o monitoring and managing jobs and printers
> o configuring printers
>>If I have left out some important ideas above, they can be added to this
>>Overall, the bullets need to have parallel parts of speech.
<<RKD>> yes - for example under end user the current foil
<<RKD>> says finding and location ...should be finding and
<<RKD>> Once again I'm concerned about being too browser
<<RKD>> specific. The operations mentioned here could be
<<RKD>> be done from a unique print client, from a driver,
<<RKD>> or by code imbedded in the operating system.
<<RKD>> Is submitting a print job from a standard application
<<RKD>> meant to imply the use of print drivers (the desktop
<<RKD>> model? Maybe you need to say this to clarify the
<<RKD>> distinction between this and background or batch
<<RKD>> printing. This would solve Bob's concern below.
>>On foil 2, alerting is mentioned for the operator but not for the end-user.
>The 3 bullet items under submitting a print job don't seem to be parallel.
>"From standard applications" and "Background or batch applications" seem
>to be nearly the same, i.e. "from applications". The "via reference" seems
>to be very different and I assume it is contrasting "with document content"
>which is not mentioned. I would suggest two bullets:
>> o from applications
> o with document content or a reference to it
>>"Changing job and printer status" An operator cannot change job or
>printer status, but can change other attributes of each object. The
>phrase probably should be "changing some printer and job attributes."
>>There needs to be a new bullet item that says that an administrator
<<RKD>> I would replace authorization lists with
<<RKD>> acess control lists, since ACL is the term
<<RKD>> that we use in the specifiation.
>can configure a printer.
>>On foil 3, what does "operator requirements" refer to?
<<RKD>> I suspect that this should be end-user, and refers
<<RKD>> to the fact that the specification initially will
<<RKD>> only address the end-user requirments.
>>I think that "Independent" and two sub items should be changed to
>"Platform Independent for client and server".
>>>What does "enabled" mean for I18N? Perhaps it is enough to make
>the item and sub item be just "Internationalized".
>>>>> From don at lexmark.com Tue Dec 3 11:14:19 1996
>> To: "harryl%vnet.ibm.com" <harryl at vnet.ibm.com>
>> Cc: "ipp%pwg.org" <ipp at pwg.org>
>> From: Don Wright <don at lexmark.com>
>> Date: 3 Dec 96 14:08:12 EST
>> Subject: Re: IPP> BOF Presentation Comments
>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>> Sender: ipp-owner at pwg.org>> X-Lines: 45
>>>> I made Harry's suggested change except I changed "...browsers
>> for providing static..." to "...browsers to provide static..." Rolls off
>> the tongue a little better.
>>>> To: ipp%pwg.org @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP
>> cc: (bcc: Don Wright)
>> From: harryl @ vnet.ibm.com>" <harryl%VNET.IBM.COM at interlock.lexmark.com>> ("Harry Lewis) @ SMTP
>> Date: 12/03/96 10:41:04 AM
>> Subject: IPP> BOF Presentation Comments
>>>> I reviewed the 3 slide BOF presentation and have the following comments.
>>>> The first "foil" is a bit tongue tied in that it references Internet printing
>> AFTER initial set-up but later includes installation, configuration etc in
>> the IPP definition. Also, I think this paragraph makes unnecessary and
>> distinctions between remote, local and lan printing. Below, I will include
>> the current wording followed by my recommended rewrite. Note, I also removed
>> the word "paradigm" because I believe Internet printing will be viewed as a
>> new paradigm.
>>>> > Internet Printing is the application of World Wide Web tools, programs,
>> > servers and networks to allow "end-users" to print to a remote printer
>> > using, after initial setup or configuration, the same methods, operations
>> > and paradigms as would be used for a locally attached or a local area
>> > network attached printer. This includes the use of HTTP servers and
>> > browsers for providing static, dynamic and interactive printer locating
>> > services, user installation, selection, configuration and status inquiry
>> > of remote printers and jobs.
>>>>>> Internet Printing is the application of World Wide Web tools, programs,
>> servers and networks to allow "end-users" to print using methods and
>> operations similar to those currently used for locally attached or LAN
>> printing in the platform dependent OS. Internet Printing will include the
>> use of HTTP servers and browsers for providing static, dynamic and
>> interactive print services location, printer installation, selection and
>> configuration as well as remote printer and print job monitoring.
>>>>>> Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems