IPP> May 28th Conference Call

IPP> May 28th Conference Call

IPP> May 28th Conference Call

don at lexmark.com don at lexmark.com
Fri May 30 15:54:08 EDT 1997


To:       ipp at pwg.org
cc:
From:     Don Wright @ LEXMARK at LEXMTA
Date:     05/30/97 03:54:08 PM
Subject:  May 28th Conference Call


I have uploaded the meeting minutes from the May 28th
Conference Call to the ftp server in both TXT and PDF
formats.  They are located at:


ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/970528-ipp-conference-call.txt
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/970528-ipp-conference-call.pdf


I have attached a copy of the text version at the bottom of
this note.


-------------------
PWG - Internet Printing Project
Conference Call - May 28, 1997




Attendees:


Don Wright - Lexmark
Peter Zehler - Xerox
Roger DeBry - IBM
Scott Isaacson - Novell
Carl-Uno Manros - Xerox
Tom Hastings - Xerox
Ron Bergman - Data Products
Randy Turner - Sharp
Ira McDonald - Xerox
Angelo Caruso - Xerox
J.K. Martin - Underscore
Bob Herriot - Sun
Jim Walker - Dazel
Jeff Copeland - QMS


Agenda


1)  Revised Charter
2)  JOB MIB/IPP Harmonization




REVISED CHARTER


Carl-Uno led the discussion on the updates to the IETF Charter.  There have
 been few comments on the
mailing list.


An author is needed for the LPR mapping document.  Someone with a system
background, with LPR
experience, etc. would be the ideal author.  At this time, no one
volunteered.


Should the date for prototyping move from July out?  The group's opinion is
 that the July date is not
realistic and should be moved out to at least August.


The group should plan on a bake-off of some type.  The biggest concern is
how to actually connect it to the
Internet and be able to test the clients and servers in a real Internet
environment rather than a more
controlled, contrived network.


Should we split up the PROTOCOL document into two parts?  One part that is
actually protocol neutral and
the other mapping to a specific protocol?  Roger Debry suggested putting
the protocol neutral items into the
MODEL document rather than creating another document.  Roger reminded the
group about the difficulty
of keeping multiple documents synchronized.  A consensus began to form that
 putting the protocol neutral
information into the MODEL document was the right thing to do.  At this
point Randy Turner expressed his
concerns that fully separating the PDU from the transport would make a less
 efficient solution.
Additionally, feedback from the Memphis IETF encouraged the group to put a
stake in the ground and
specify a complete protocol rather than attempt to be so generic and
effectively specify nothing concrete.
At the end, the group generally agreed to keep the MODEL document abstract
and to create a PROTOCOL
document that including encoding as well as the specific HTTP information.


A brief discussion on print-by-reference and its importance to the NC
(Network Computer) environment
was held.  This discussion was suspended to allow the Job MIB/IPP
harmonization discussion to begin.


JOB MIB and IPP Harmonization


The discussion centered on the number of job states that should be
supported.  There are basically three
states: before, during and after printing.  These three states are then
broken down further to provide more
information.  This is a total of seven states:


Pending
Pending - Stopped
Processing
Processing - Stopped
Done - Abort
Done - Canceled
Done - Completed


JobState and JobStateReasons will be mandatory.  A separate JOB conference
call will be scheduled to
work on this in more detail.  Having harmony between the JOB MIB and IPP is
 necessary and a strong goal
of the two groups.


Tom Hastings will write up a new proposal and most it to the mailing lists.


PROTOCOL DOCUMENT


The discussion on how much information to include in the PROTOCOL document
resumed after the JMP
discussion.  A protocol working group meeting was scheduled for June 17th
at SUN in Menlo Park starting
at 9:30 AM.


Comments on Randy's IPP Protocol Document:


1)  Where should the concept of levels of function be included?
2)  Should the length fields be binary values or text?  Many of the
participants on the call thought fixed
length ASCII encoded text for length is preferred.  At the end, the
opinions were still mixed but won't
be changed right now.
3)  We shouldn't call the OPERATION and attribute but rather keep it at the
 first of the PDU and call it
something besides attribute.
4)  A concern was raised over the concept of "unsupported-attributes."
5)  What should happen on a GetJobs request?  Everything?  A specific list
asked for by the client?
Something else?  Resolution: The clients get everything up to a specified
limit using a filter provided
by the client.  This will be specified in the model document.
6)  Values are unsigned
7)  Names are limited as specified in the model document.


Carl-Uno reported on the security work and announced a security conference
call will be held on Friday.


Bob Herriot will set up a Monday conference call to discuss the protocol
document in more detail.


The conference call ended at 6:50 PM EDT
-------------------


Don




*************************************************************
* Don Wright (don at lexmark.com)        Lexmark International *
* Manager                               Strategic Alliances *
* 740 New Circle Rd                     Phone: 606-232-4808 *
* Lexington, KY  40511                    Fax: 606-232-6740 *
*************************************************************



More information about the Ipp mailing list