> I am not yet quite clear on what the requirement to have "reasonable
> compatibility to LPR" will mean in practise. I believe that we already have
> all the comparable functionality in our new solution, and that building
> gateways between IPP and LPR should not be too difficult.
Yes, I think that's true.
> Is the IESG looking for more than that?
Perhaps only that the group explicitly specify (probably in a separate
document) how to map LPR onto IPP.
> When you talk about LPR compatibility I assume that it is limited to
> the rather rather small subset in RFC 1179, rather then the actual
> "LPR inspired" products, with considerably more functionality, that
> people actually use...
Something like that. 1179 is incorrect in so many places that I
wouldn't want to make it definitive. The idea is not to add new
features to LPR, but to document how to implement 4.2BSD LPR
functionality in terms of IPP.
> Let us see what your proposed text looks like.
It may be early next week. I'm out-of-town from Friday-Sunday,
attending a design team meeting for the DRUMS working group.