IPP> REQ - Comments

IPP> REQ - Comments

IPP> REQ - Comments

Carl-Uno Manros cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com
Mon Mar 10 21:00:11 EST 1997


Hi,


I tend to agree with those of you who have pointed out that a number of
requirements that seem more related to the HOW rather than the WHAT should
be kept out of the REQ document.  Even if we have decided before that we
should not add a lot of functionality in the MOD document, that has no
equivalent in the REQ document, I do not think that this was meant to mean
an exact match - the REQ document will express problems to be solved on a
more generic user level, while the MOD document should adress how this can
be refined in an architectural way and expressed in more concise semantics.
The same thing is true, in even higher degree, when it comes to the
relationship between the REQ and PRO documents. 


Some of the suggested requirement additions should probably be re-phrased
as design requirements or design principles when writing the MOD and PRO
documents - remember that the REQ document will become an informational
RFC, primarily there as a support during the development of the MOD and PRO
documents. Anything of importance for the standard, has to go into the RFC
documents aimed for the standards track.


What I consider to be an important user requirement though, is the one from
Tom that states:


>>   IPP shall provide the same functionality to the end-user for print
>>   time choices of stored documents as the end-user has for printing
>>   directly from an application.


As has already been discussed, this may not be doable by all
implementations in the short run, but I still think it is a valid and
important user requirement.


Carl-Uno






Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros at cp10.es.xerox.com



More information about the Ipp mailing list