I have inserted a few comments below, preceded by CBM>, otherwise this
starts becoming totally unreadable.
At 01:10 PM 5/5/97 PDT, JK Martin wrote:
>>> Although I agree that I see what appear to be contradictory comments
>> about the base system (high end printer vs printer preceded by server
>> vs hardware not able to implement), and I see some unlikely
>> ($150 printers are still rated as personal printers, not workgroup
>> printers), Jay's base premise frightens me.
>>You raise an interesting question about terminology here. I quickly
>agree with you that $150 printers would be characterized as "personal"
>printers and not "workgroup" printers. However, Tom repeatedly states
>the IPP's intention to support "desktop" printers.
>>So, exactly how do we define a "desktop" printer? Hopefully this is
>not a silly question, given that serious design decisions are being
>made based on the need to support "desktop" printers.
>>Should only "network printers" be considered when defining implementation
>constraints? (And yes, what constitutes a "network printer", etc?)
CBM> I think using these terms in the context of model and protocol are
CBM> meaningless, but they give some general idea in the requirements doc.
CBM> The first set of IPP implementations will most certainly be of type
CBM> print server that can front for any type of printer, including a $150
CBM> printer which is hooked up directly to the print server machine.
CBM> The next stage is more likely to include IPP servers embedded in
CBM> print devices connected to the network, and whether that networked
CBM> printer fits on a desktop or not seems really irrelevant.
>>> The notion that IPP is *just* for internet printing (as
>> from intranet or intra-enterprise printing) is a very frightening
>> Granted that internet printing has a certain pizzas right now, I
>> still expect 90% of the printing will be within a company. I strongly
>> question whether there is any rational in developing a protocol just
>> for internet printing. Indeed, since one of the intentions is to
>> provide a substantial improvement over LPR, I would certainly expect
>> that intra-enterprise printing is the major target.
>>I sure hope so, too. What I see happening though (IMHO) is that the IPP
>group is assuming that an HTTP-based approach should work equally well
>in an *intranet* environment as an *internet* environment. This is why
>I said "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
>>Solving the intranet problem is just as big a need (no, bigger?) than
>solving the Pay-for-Print and "fax replacement" requirements noted in
>the IPP requirements doc.
CBM> I do not think that anybody is neglecting the intranet type scenarios.
CBM> Actually when it comes to security, we need to make rather explicit
CBM> the differences between the intranet and the Internet cases.
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