IPP> "IPP" == "DPA"

IPP> "IPP" == "DPA"

IPP> "IPP" == "DPA"

Tom Hastings hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Thu Mar 20 17:08:44 EST 1997

Harry and Jay,

It would be real helpful if you both could take a couple of minutes and
list what complexity in the current Model document you are most concerned 

Then we could consider doing something about it.  However, just a general
concern about complexity is hard to respond to (and easy to ignore).


At 08:31 03/20/97 PST, Harry Lewis wrote:
>Epilogue: Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>Jay said...
>>After reviewing Tom Hasting's most recent issues document, it is
>>really starting to appear that "IPP" is simply the 1990's name
>>for "DPA" in terms of scope and complexity.
>>Does anyone else out there share this view?
>Yes, I have express this sentiment when reviewing other IPP documents. I can't
> because I've been unable to participate as heavily as I'd like in the
>extremely rapid pace
> of IPP development, therefore, I haven't been able to contribute any
>meaningful alternatives.
> I'm still trying to pare back the Job MIB to something that will work in a
>printer! It's where I'm
> currently focused. (I guess someone has to bring up the rear ;-).
>Just as an observation - and I'll admit to being parochial toward lower cost
>controllers, not necessarily representing the "total" IBM or industry world of
>printing - it seems
> like not only DPA, but specifically the constant bringing of SERVER function
>into the picture
> is what makes it so complex. I'm not saying this is not valid or necessary,
>but I feel like there
> are already products developed or being developed on DPA (Tom even referenced
> as existing applications that can't be "broken" when I recommended changing
>JobState to
> one object rather than 2). It's fine for DPA to cover all the complexities of
>job sets, job ordering,
> print pooling, holding 'till midnight, documents that make up jobs etc. etc.
>etc..., but why do
> we have to push ALL this into IPP? Why can't IPP facilitate web submission and
>web feedback,
>freeing network print from the LOCAL area network, and still let DPA
>applications manage the
>complex enterprise where and when appropriate.
>Don't get me wrong - I feel DPA and DPA applications have a definite place and
>a great value
>in many large enterprises. I want IPP and DPA apps to interoperate. I just
>don't want IPP to
> *become* DPA (same goes for the Job MIB).
>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

More information about the Ipp mailing list