IPP>PRO revised agenda [some additional ideas]

IPP>PRO revised agenda [some additional ideas]

IPP>PRO revised agenda [some additional ideas]

Patrick Powell papowell at dickory.sdsu.edu
Fri Mar 7 22:58:18 EST 1997


# To: Robert.Herriot at eng.sun.com (Robert Herriot)
# From: Tom Hastings <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>
# Subject: Re: IPP>PRO revised agenda [some additional ideas]
# Cc: ipp at pwg.org
# Sender: ipp-owner at pwg.org
# Status: R


# I suggest that we start off by trying to agree on what the requirements
# are for the Protocol document.


# For example:


# 1. Map the tokens and semantics from the Model and Semantics document
# to a protocol.


I twitch every time I see the term 'protocol' used in this manner.
Most of the IETF world looks at protocols as things to be used for
data/network information transfer.


# 2. Select a transport protocol or specify a new one.


# 3. The protocol should be straightforward for the following environments
# to support:


Yes.  This is VERY important.


# 4. The deployment of clients and servers supporting new versions of the
# protocol need not be done in lock step.


I do not understand this comment.


# 5. etc.


I would like to discuss unifying some of the efforts of the Protocol
and Model efforts,  so that the limitations of existing/current transfer
protocols can be more explicitly examined.  I have just been through a
'what if this is done?  then we cannot use THAT protocol'
effort,  and largely ended up with little progress in my own understanding
of the problems.


# A second agenda item would be to list the RFCs that are reference and/or
# background to the IPP protocol effort, especially for those of us who are
# not familiar with very many RFCs.  I suggest that the protocol sub-group
# keep an every-green list of such RFCs.  Such a growing list should contain:


#   a. The complete title of the RFC
#   b. The RFC number
#   c. A sentence or two about what is in the RFC (maybe its Abstract?)
#   d. Why this RFC is in this list: possible transport protocol, source for
#      syntax, a good RFC to copy in form and presentation, etc.


# The best place for this list would be on the PWG IPP web page itself with
# hot links to the RFC FTP server for each listed RFC.


I agree.  In addition I recommend that you also add the ietf proposals.


I would like to add an item - protocol implementation
and trial implementations of example (baseline) server which would gateway
IPP to LPR and SMB, a (Win32?) client and a UNIX client.


Patrick Powell



More information about the Ipp mailing list