IPP> Re: ADM - IPP Charter and Slot in Memphis

IPP> Re: ADM - IPP Charter and Slot in Memphis

IPP> Re: ADM - IPP Charter and Slot in Memphis

Bill Wagner bwagner at digprod.com
Mon Mar 10 10:47:06 EST 1997


     Don et al., 
     
     My reaction of seeing Carl-Uno's message that the charter must address 
     compatibility between LPR and IPP was probably quite similar to Don's. 
     To impose a requirement on IPP that it be compatible with a very 
     loose, inconsistently implemented, and functionally deprived 
     application is totally unreasonable.
     
     As Don points out, the existence of incompatible printing protocols 
     and print services is and will remain a fact. In addition to the 
     IP/IPX/AppleTalk etc. variations in underlying protocol, there are 
     incompatible  print services within the same basic protocols. Just 
     look at the list of 'Channels' in the printer MIB. As a print server 
     provider, DPI must support a 'compromise' LPR, TCP/IP 'Port' printing 
     with selectable ports (since different host software use different 
     port numbers), and FTP, just considering the IP print services.
     
     Since there is no consistency in IP print services now, it seems more 
     rational to define a new IP print service that leverages upon 
     something that is consistent across virtually all platforms using IP.
     
     On reflection however, Keith Moore's request might not pertain to 
     compatibility at the protocol level, but might simply reflect the very 
     real requirement of a reasonable migration path at the application 
     level, so that users which now can initiate printing only via LPR/LPD 
     have some alternate method or some redirecter allowing them to print 
     via IPP. I believe that a reference to this consideration would 
     appropriate in the charter.
     
     Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI  
     
     




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: IPP> Re: ADM - IPP Charter and Slot in Memphis
Author:  Don Wright <don at lexmark.com> at Internet
Date:    3/6/97 5:39 PM




Well, I guess I am going to hack off the IETF people but...


-- warning -- highly opinionated and caustic verbiage ahead


LPR is not a standard.  LPR is not as widely deployed 
as many other protocols (pick Novell's PSERVER or RPRINTER
or NetBEUI/SMB which are much more widely deployed) yet we 
are making no effort to be compatible with those.  I think the
request is unreasonable.  If a vendor wants to have a
print server that supports both IPP and LPR as an inbound
print mechanism -- great!  But to saddle IPP with LPR is 
simply not reasonable.


Is HTTP compatible with FTP? -- no, but both transfer files.
Why didn't the IETF require HTTP to be backwards
compatible with FTP -- because the work was done outside
of the IETF and finally endorsed when HTTP was so widely
deployed it could not be ignored.  I don't believe there is a 
hard precedent that has been set that says every new 
solution must be compatible with an older means used to 
do something similar.  Perhaps we should do the work and
deploy it into the market outside of the IETF's domain?


-- well, I said it and I bet a number of others feel the same way.
Any one else want to chime in?


Don


To: cmanros%cp10.es.xerox.com @ interlock.lexmark.com (Carl-Uno Manros) @ SMTP
cc: Harald.T.Alvestrand%uninett.no @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP, 
moore%cs.utk.edu @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP, ipp%pwg.org @ 
interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP (bcc: Don Wright)
From: moore%cs.utk.edu @ interlock.lexmark.com (Keith Moore) @ SMTP
Date: 03/06/97 05:14:03 PM
Subject: IPP> Re: ADM - IPP Charter and Slot in Memphis


> The IPP group is still eagerly waiting your feedback on the Charter
> business as well as confirmation on our slot in Memphis. 


The IESG met earlier today and discussed the IPP charter. It decided
to approve the working group once the following changes are made to
the charter:


+ The WG has to make recommendations as to how to acheive reasonable
  compatibility between ipp and lpr.  IESG understands that lpr is 
  insufficient in its current form and basically non-extensible, that 
  its behavior varies widely between implementations and so does not
  produce repeatable results, and that it lacks the security needed 
  for printing in a global Internet.  However, IESG also recognizes 
  that lpr is widely deployed, and that a new protocol -- even a much
  better one -- could be disruptive to the installed base. 


+ There is a new requirement that all working group charters
  explicitly address security, so we need to add this. 


Just to be clear: the working group has been approved, but I have to
show that these things have been incorporated to the charter before
the group is formally created.  So I'll add a paragraph or two to the
charter that reflects what IESG agreed to, and run it by the IPP
chairs before giving it to the IESG Executive Director.


> People are trying to make their reservations for Memphis and need to
> know at least which week-day that we can expect the IPP slot to be,
> as several experts will only come in for the IPP meeting rather than
> the full week. Remember that I asked you several weeks ago to get a
> slot early in the week, as we will hold an IPP meeting at the end of
> the week before the IETF in Memphis, and some people want to combine
> the two trips.


IPP is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday at 9:00 am.


Keith






 



More information about the Ipp mailing list