IPP> Re: Does the world need a robust host-to-device network

IPP> Re: Does the world need a robust host-to-device network

Paul Moore paulmo at microsoft.com
Fri Feb 13 12:41:15 EST 1998


Building a second protocol based on the model is the worst of both worlds:-
- It is a separate completely non-interoperable protocol (being based on the
same model means nothing in wire terms), would a printer do both?
- It constrains the second protocol to only doing things that IPP can do.






> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Tom Hastings [SMTP:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, February 12, 1998 5:23 PM
> To:	Harry Lewis; jkm at underscore.com
> Cc:	ipp at pwg.org; Paul Moore
> Subject:	Re: IPP> Re: Does the world need a robust host-to-device
> network prin
> 
> I agree completely with Harry here.  We need to build on IPP, not start
> anew.
> 
> In fact to further the discussion on defining such a "robust
> host-to-device" 
> network printing protocol (probably NOT across firewalls) and to test
> whether we can really build on IPP (as Harry and I advocate):
> 
>   People that are raising issues with IPP as the "robust host-to-device
>   network printing protocol when not going across firewalls",
>   please indicate whether the problem is with the current IPP Model
> document 
>   or the current IPP protocol document.
> 
> For the problems with the Model document, they may be resolvable by 
> extending the Model, by, say, adding more Printer attributes and maybe
> a Set-Printer-Attributes operation?  And, of course, notification.
> 
> For problems that were with the protocol (mapping) document, the PWG might
> 
> develop a second IPP protocol document for use in the host to printer 
> connection whose semantics would be the same (extended) IPP Model
> document.  
> This second IPP protocol mapping document would be a PWG standard, not an 
> IETF standard, since the document deals with the host to printer
> connection 
> only (and not the Internet).  
> 
> NOTE that some printers would implement both IPP protocol mappings, if
> they 
> wanted to be used across the Internet and in the host to printer
> connection.
> But with the same semantic model, such a dual implementation would not be
> a big burden.
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> 
> At 16:04 02/10/1998 PST, Harry Lewis wrote:
> >If we were to address a new, standard, host-to-device printing protocol
> >
> >> Now if somebody wants to have a separate debate about writing a really
> >> robust protocol for interfacing to printers (and I mean the real
> hardware
> >> not some logical abstraction) then that will suit me fine. Lets start a
> new
> >> track and call it, say, NLS (Not LPD and SNMP). This is what I
> initially
> >> wanted to do but could not persuade enough people.
> >
> >in my opinion, it should be based on the set of attributes defined for
> IPP
> >and the resulting device protocol should be as closely correlated with
> IPP
> >as possible such that the mapping is very straight forward and simple.
> >
> >Harry Lewis
> >
> >



More information about the Ipp mailing list