I believe this group is interested to taking care of the details
so that this concept will be implemented in a consisted way.
While the scope of the IETF work may simply be MIME definitions
and the IPP protocol, my suggestion from a couple of weeks
ago to develop a scenarios document that delt with the details
of a complete implementation still stands. We can product all
the RFCs we want but if we don't discuss and document the
details, we are doomed to a paper standard and a commercial
flop.
Don
Randy Turner said:
>Concerning the issue of drivers, isn't this outside the scope
>of IPP? We are just trying to architect a transport for delivery
>of print data over a network. Typically a Windows print driver
>will generate Postscript or PCL that includes printer-specific
>features. Once the final form of the PDL is submitted (via
>re-director or other method), that is where we come in with
>IPP.
>>Like I suggested a week or so ago with the separate document
>scoping, I think the entire driver issue is non-sequitur with
>our efforts at prioritizing our work with the IPP transport
>protocol.
>>This is not to say that easy installation of drivers is not an
>issue, it just shouldn't be OUR issue, at least initially.
>Besides, when you are talking about drivers you are probably
>undoubtedly talking about the Windows/Win95/Winnt environment,
>and I think that IPP should address more than solving the problem
>of internet printing within Microsoft environments.
>>Randy
Scott A. Isaacson wrote:
>> I agree with Babak. We need to be able to support all existing drivers.
> But I doubt that we can be successful with any kind of "minimal driver".
> We already have that with the generic Apple Laserwriter PS driver and
> the HP 3 PCL driver. These can be used for almost any printer in the
> world. We don't need to create any new ones.
>> Scott
>> ************************************************************
> Scott A. Isaacson
> Print Services Consulting Engineer
> Novell Inc., 122 E 1700 S, Provo, UT 84606
> V: (801) 861-7366, (800) 453-1267 x17366
> F: (801) 861-4025, E: scott_isaacson at novell.com> W: http://www.novell.com> ************************************************************
>> >>> Babak Jahromi <babakj at MICROSOFT.com> 12/17/96 07:46pm >>>
> >
> >if I recall correctly, one of our user requirements was that we would
> >like to avoid having a separate print driver to install for every new
> network
> >printer that a user may want to use. Compare this to fax today - you do
> >not expect the user to download a new piece of software for every
> new
> >fax address he/she wants to use. My hope would be that the "IPP print
> driver"
> >is a generic piece of software, which can be used for many different
> printers
> >in combination with a relatively short list of capabilities and options for a
> >particular printer. This list could be stored locally or downloaded every
> >time.
> >Am I too optimistic here?
>> "Generic" is synonym to "poor feature list". Why do we want to force
> people who have invested in full feature printers to treat them like
> monochrome fax machines? If people like to use Internet Printing as a
> fax service, then the server can install the printer with a minimal
> driver, and we can arrage that all Internet clients would have that
> minimal driver. But beyond that, the driver would have to be downloaded
> from the server. And the good thing is that the driver does not have to
> know anything about the new protocol. i.e. no change is needed in
> today's drivers.
>> Babak
--
Randy Turner
Network Architect
Sharp Laboratories of America
rturner at sharplabs.com