# I think it's fair to say that there is suspicion both on the
# part of some members of IPP to IETF, and of some members of IETF
# toward IPP. The best way to address this problem is to get the
# two groups working together.
# > However, it would be important for someone who is highly motivated
# > (because of existing business in legacy LPR systems) to take a look at
# > the IPP model and subsequent protocol to insure that this LPR mapping
# > can be done. If there are any real concerns, voice them now. I have
# > not heard major issues to date.
I am one of those people. I am the author of several LPR based print
spooling systems and the reason I got involved was to make sure that
RFC1179 is obsoleted by something rational.
I have some concerns - most of which revolve around PRESENTATION
of the standard and making things uniform and understandable to
the IETF audience. In addition, I think that the scope of the IPP
protocol discussions and model is too limited - better to do it
all at once rather than to have SNMP/SNMP II all over again.
# Nor do I think there are any. It's just a matter of documenting
# how it is done.