IPP> Scott's Presentation for the BOF

IPP> Scott's Presentation for the BOF

IPP> Scott's Presentation for the BOF

rdebry at us1.ibm.com rdebry at us1.ibm.com
Wed Dec 4 10:40:44 EST 1996


Classification:
Prologue:
Epilogue:


Scott, here are my comments on the presentation:


o Background Chart
 do we need to list individual pointers at this point? I'd suggest
 a separate page with all of the reference material, including
 how to subscribe to the discussion group and what can be
 found at the ftp-site.


o ISO/IEC 10175 DPA chart
 - Dazzle should be Dazel
 - Please include IBM's Printing Systems Manager


o Synergy chart
 The fact that we agreed on an approach and completed the
 initial draft in 12 days (thanks to Scott's hard work) clearly shows
  that we have gotten to consensus quickly. However, I'd feel
 more comfortable just saying "Quick Consensus", perhaps some
 will not take the proposal seriously when we say it only took 12
 working days to produce.


 Should the "simplified" bullet include the fact that the first version
 of the standard is intended to support only end-user operations?
 If not, should we say that explicitly elsewhere, since Don's
  requirements presentation will list all of the roles?


 Should we list some (or all) of the companies involved? I think
 it would add credibility.


o What is IPP? chart
 Should the bullet HTTP 1.0 say "Built (or based) on HTTP 1.0" to
 be consistent with the prior bullet?


 Should we say here that the proposal uses simple ascii encodings,
 for those familiar with DPA and the Printer MIB, who might expect
 to see ASN.1 or OIDs?


o Generic Distributed Printing chart
 I made a similar comment on Don's charts -- would pictures here
 provide a more meaningful way to present this infomation? I like
 pictures personally, it helps me to see the relationships of things.
 The same chart (or a modified/colored) version could then be
 used to talk about the IPP printing model. This would make clear
 which components of the printing system have been modeled as
 IPP Objects.


o IPP Operations
 At this point do we need quotes around the word documents?  I
 have a feeling we may get into trouble with the IPP notion of an
 object vs. things that IPP deals with. We can clearly print multiple
 documents in a job. The fact that we don't define a document as
 an IPP object is confusing.


o Printer chart
 I suspect that you will say this as you present the chart, but it is not
 clear from the words on the chart that the abstraction we call a Printer
 includes functionality often supported in a print server, e.g. queuing,
 scheduling, etc.


o Job chart
 I think that the first major bullet and its sub-bullets are confusing.  We
 need to come to terms with what a document is!  If we can have one
 or more of them, and they can have attributes, why aren't they objects?
 Will this be hard to explain in the presentation?


o Job Template
 I'd remove the bullet "Several per Printer", given the issues surrounding
 the definition of job-template. One could suggest that as an abstraction,
 a Printer has but one set of defaults. A physical device may have multiple
 job-templates and a server may share templates among many physical
 devices, but it seems simpler to me to think of the abstraction as a single
 view of the device. Another view is another Printer.


o IPP Messages chart
  an IPP message is in fact an HTTP message with the IPP part imbedded
 in the HTTP message's entity body. At least this is what the current spec
 (and the next chart) says.  Perhaps if you switched the order of this chart
 with the next one (IPP Messages over HTTP/1.0) it would make this clear.


 Instead of writing down the syntax, I also think that an example make this
 more clear.  You could uses one of the examples from the appendix.
 This is probably an important point to make clear as it will allow people
 attending the BOF to focus on exactly how we use HTTP, an area where
 there could be a lot of debate.


o Security chart
 If asked, can we respond with what existing security mechanisms we
 rely on?  Should we simply say that this is an open issue, or under study?


 I don't understand the multi-valued list of end user names bullet.



More information about the Ipp mailing list