IPP> What is it we really need? -Reply

IPP> What is it we really need? -Reply

IPP> What is it we really need? -Reply

Babak Jahromi babakj at MICROSOFT.com
Tue Jan 7 13:40:22 EST 1997


I did not say there is no need for stand alone network printers. I said
there is no dying need for them to be connected to Internet. That does
not mean they should not be connected to the private corporate networks.
I was implying that we should not dump HTTP becasue it is hard to
implement a Web server inside a printer. This is becasue the Web server
can always run on the computer, and the computer can interface with the
the network printer over the corporate network using whatever they are
using today, TCP/IP or IPX for printing, and SNMP on top of it for
management.


Again, I am not against improving network printers. I am just saying
that for Web printing to work, we also have the option of using the Web
software already available on the computers, rather than requiring all
printers to get embedded Web capability.


Babak


>----------
>From: 	Scott Isaacson[SMTP:Scott_Isaacson at novell.com]
>Sent: 	Monday, January 06, 1997 7:02 PM
>To: 	Babak Jahromi; ipp at pwg.org; Angelo_Caruso at wb.xerox.com
>Subject: 	RE: IPP> What is it we really need? -Reply
>
>Babak,
>
>I doubt that EVERY single printer that is EVER made in the FUTURE will be
>a network enabled printer, but the vast majority will!  It hard to argue with
>the growth rate of "networked" printers vs "host based" printers.  It is
>easy to extrapolate the data from the growth path and see that the
>majority of printers will be nodes a a network rather than peripherals off
>of some host.  Now, not all of those will be "print server" type printers  -
>many will require some sort of server to front them, but many of the
>mid-range and above will be "server" type printers.    The beauty of the
>IPP model is that it does not force a device into a "non-server printer" or a
>"sever printer" configuration.  It is a conistent model wether the
>functionality is in the device or the typical server in front of the slave
>device.  Same protocol.  Same Model.  As the hardware is swapped out
>for better/worse capable hardware, there is not a lot of reconfig
>required.  This is the utimate in scalability from my point of view.
>
>Scott
>
>
>>>> Babak Jahromi <babakj at MICROSOFT.com> 01/06/97 05:13pm >>>
>
>> No, just make the IPP implementation easy enough, so most low end
>> printers can afford it. This again implies not re-inventing the wheel. I
>> also see nothing wrong with letting the server be hooked to Internet,
>> passing the data to the printer via USB, parallel port, Ethernet, etc. I
>> don't see a dying need for the printer boxes to be hoocked to the
>> Internet directly.
>
>
>
>



More information about the Ipp mailing list