IPP> Re: Suggested workplan - host to device protocol

IPP> Re: Suggested workplan - host to device protocol

Craig Whittle cwhittle at novell.com
Wed Feb 18 09:04:29 EST 1998


It appears as if this thread is the beginnings of yet another print =
protocol.  I would argue in favor of using existing protocols "TIPSI or =
even SNMP," as suggested by Don or at least leverage their strengths.  I =
believe the protocol could be the same between client and server and =
client and printer.  IPP is a simple solution for Internet job submission =
but it doesn't address the complexities of printer management that TIPSI =
or  SNMP do. Is it the objective of the PWG to grow IPP to include printer =
management capabilities like TIPSI or SNMP and richer job control like =
DPA?  I would hope that over time there would be a convergence of =
protocols that meets the needs of embedded devices as well as the need of =
hosts to servers, perhaps in a single protocol.


**CW


Craig T. Whittle
cwhittle at novell.com


>>> "Turner, Randy" <rturner at sharplabs.com> 02/17/98 08:33AM >>>


I think Roger (correct if I'm wrong, Roger) meant that IPP, as currently
defined, is the correct solution for server-to-printer protocol, IF the
printer device already has an embedded web server, like would probably
be used for overall management. And if this is the assertion, then I
tend to agree with it, although it depends on what the exact
*requirements* are for server-to-printer protocol.


Randy




	-----Original Message-----
	From:	don at lexmark.com [SMTP:don at lexmark.com]=20
	Sent:	Tuesday, February 17, 1998 7:24 AM
	To:	ipp at pwg.org=20
	Subject:	IPP> Re: Suggested workplan - host to device
protocol




	Roger deBry said:




	>Assertions:
	>
	>(1) IPP, as it is currently defined, is the correct protocol
	>      for client to server, across the Internet.
	>
	>(2) IPP, as it is currently defined, is the correct protocol
	>      for client to server, across an Intranet
	>
	>(3) IPP, as it is currently defined, is the correct protocol
	>      between a server and a printer which contains an
	>      imbedded server.


	I can easily agree with Roger on #1 and #2.  I think where
	the problem lies is with #3.  I am not sure how broad the
	definition of "imbedded server" is?  Does that mean imbedded
	IPP server or any server?  All of my network printers today
	have available what we call an Internal Print Server which
	supports a wide range of protocols.  Is that what you mean
	Roger?  I don't think so.  I think the definition needs to
	be "imbedded, spooling print server."  And even then, I think
	we have lost a huge amount of control and status information
	that is available from TIPSI or even SNMP.  Maybe we need
	to define some kind of passthrough for IPP that allows
	the control and status information for the down and dirty
	hardware to be retrieved and set through IPP??


	Comments?


	**********************************************
	* Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com *
	* Product Manager, Strategic Alliances       *
	* Lexmark International                      *
	* 740 New Circle Rd                          *
	* Lexington, Ky 40550                        *
	* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax)    *
	**********************************************



More information about the Ipp mailing list