IPP> Conference Call 2/26/96

IPP> Conference Call 2/26/96

IPP> Conference Call 2/26/96

Don Wright don at lexmark.com
Fri Mar 7 14:06:35 EST 1997

Boy am I late on this one....

I have posted the minutes for the Feb 26th IPP conference
call on the server.  They are as follows:


Additionally, for the computationally impaired, I have
included them in ugly TXT format.



Internet Printing Project
Conference Call - February 26, 1997

The meeting was called to order at 4:05 PM EST.


Bob Herriott - Sun
Carl-Uno Manros - Xerox
Roger Debry - IBM
Peter Zehler - Xerox
Randy Turner - Sharp
Don Wright - Lexmark
Tom Hastings - Xerox
Jim Walker- Dazel
Scott Isaacson - Novell
Steve Zilles - Adobe
Stan McConnell - Xerox


n Requirements
n Directory
n Protocol
n Time to start the Prototype sub-group
n Model
n Administrative issues
n Web page orientation
n Carl-Uno's Object Model


n Minimal number of responses to the existing documents.
n Deadline of comments is still March 5, 1997.
n New document targeted for March 7, 1997.


n Keith Carter has been posting his work to the mailing list.
n No formal work has been done.
n Getting this document done by the IETF meeting depends on the progress of the 
model work.


n Asad from Netscape (415-937-3153, asad at netscape.com) is willing to start 
working on a Protocol.
n Bob Herriott will try to setup a meeting and a call on March 7.  He will 
notify the list of the details.
n Recent posting seem to indicate that using POST versus a new method would 
have little difference in 
performance for printing.
n RFC2068 is the HTTP/1.1 Specification
n Discussion on usage of the ACCEPT Header which is new for HTTP/1.1
n A conforming IPP server will have to deal with both HTTP and IPP responses.
n Usage of MIME is still an issue for the Protocol group.

Prototype Efforts

n There are several prototyping efforts underway
n Potential leaders of this effort should be identified in the next week and 
selected at the conference call 
next week.


n Authors should create a generic name for their documents that will always be 
the latest version.  The 
documents will be stored in the historic directory with version numbers
n a minutes subdirectory off of new_xxx should be create for storing meeting an
d conference call 


n New Model document (version 1.4) has been recently posted.
n Minutes have also been posted
n Major open issues
n Marked with the work ISSUES in the document
n Are there enough operations?
n Are the right operations available on each object type?
n Does the model need to address the issue of breaking a job into multiple 
segments (i.e. 
n Discussion on the need for an attribute that reveals if the Printer is a 
spooling Printer or not.  Is there 
a need for more than just TCP/IP flow control?  Do we need a bidirectional 
channel?  Can all of the 
status info be sent back in the responses (synchronously)?  Since all LARGE 
jobs will have to be split 
up by the application segmenting, we know that we  will have to do some sort of 
segmenting.  The 
term chunking should not be used for segmenting since it overlaps with MIME 
n If we choose to make a mapping of IPP model semantics over HTTP we will haver 
several documents 
- one for mapping over HTTP/1.0 and one for mapping over HTTP/1.1
n Should Job State Reasons include any printer state reasons?  Also, in 1.4 we 
said that all Printer 
Status attributes were returned in the Job Submit response.  We also stated 
that the semantics were 
based on the Printer status just befor the job "is submitted".  However, we 
need to rethink this.  If we 
put printer state reasons in the Job status attributes and we return Job Status 
attributes rather than 
Printer Status Attributes, then we solve the problem presented in the scenarios.

End of meeting.

* Don Wright (don at lexmark.com)        Lexmark International *
* Manager                               Strategic Alliances *
* 740 New Circle Rd                     Phone: 606-232-4808 *
* Lexington, KY  40511                    Fax: 606-232-6740 *

More information about the Ipp mailing list