IPP>PRO proposed tweak to protocol

IPP>PRO proposed tweak to protocol

IPP>PRO proposed tweak to protocol

JK Martin jkm at underscore.com
Thu Jul 10 14:50:30 EDT 1997


I agree with David completely.


Based on the content of Bob's submission, I just don't see the value
in making this kind of change, particularly at this point in time.


Perhaps Bob (or another proponent) can better illustrate the supposed
advantages to this proposal?


No matter what, we really need to (publicly) hear what Microsoft and
Hewlett-Packard have to say on this matter.


	...jay


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--  JK Martin               |  Email:   jkm at underscore.com          --
--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              --
--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              --
--  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------


----- Begin Included Message -----


Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 11:16:47 PST
From: David_Kellerman at nls.com
To: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: Re: IPP>PRO proposed tweak to protocol


> In today's meeting we decided to propose one last small tweak to the
> IPP protocol.  We decided that I would send out this proposal for all
> of you to read and comment on.
>
> I think that it is an improvement. I hope that you will agree.


Please.  I can't see where this change amounts to a hill of beans, one
way or the other.  I've decoded enough line encodings, with and without
type tags, to be confident that, in the big picture, this doesn't
matter.  What's driving me crazy is to see "the protocol encoding
discussion that wouldn't die."  And each time we get a slightly
different quorum, it takes off in a different direction.  It's chewed up
endless e-mail messages on the mailing list, it took a half day of the
IPP meetings in Nashua, and I'm sure that's only a small sampling.


Let me take another tack -- maybe this will be useful for future
discussion.  We've all been watching the Pathfinder mission (haven't
we?), and we've gotten it drilled into us about how this is NASA's new
way of doing space exploration -- "faster, better, cheaper" or something
thereabouts.  My impression is that, basically, they've tried to be
smarter about what's important, and where they spend their hours and
dollars -- stock components wherever possible; if a solution is good
enough to do the job, move on to the next thing; which investment of
effort is likely to have to greatest benefit.  They're not wasting time
debating what shape of nuts to use -- four sided, six sided; hey,
they're some advantages to seven sided, you know.


Haarrumph!


::  David Kellerman         Northlake Software      503-228-3383
::  david_kellerman at nls.com Portland, Oregon        fax 503-228-5662




----- End Included Message -----



More information about the Ipp mailing list