IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2?

IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2?

IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2?

Ira McDonald blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Thu Jul 31 15:31:25 EDT 2008


Hi,

I agree with Dave Whitehead that required document formats (or any other
new IPP requirements) belong in a separate standards-track PWG spec.

Prototyping in the PWG Process does NOT require any interoperability testing
at all.  It's just a partial implementation (no minimum content) by a
single vendor.

Interoperability testing (AFTER approval of specs) is also part of the PWG
Process but is NOT required to bring a document to Formal Approval vote
as a Candidate Standard (unlike IETF and many other standards bodies).

For IPP2x versions, a prototype could be one printer in a lab with a
test client.

I also agree that prototyping *some* required IPP document formats could
be trivially accomplished.

If we need new IPP projects, then so be it.  But please let's not destroy the
chance of IPP2x by introducing new content and breaking the concensus
to proceed that was based on no new content.

IPP/1.0 implementations DO NOT conform to IPP/1.1 and WILL NOT conform
to IPP/2.0 - end of story.

Cheers,
- Ira

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Dave Whitehead <david at lexmark.com> wrote:
> If we can agree to the correct document format, prototyping could be a
> matter of minutes.
>
> dhw
>
>
>
>
>             Michael R Sweet
>             <msweet at apple.com
>             >                                                          To
>                                       Dave Whitehead <david at lexmark.com>
>             07/31/2008 02:02                                           cc
>             PM                        Ira McDonald
>                                       <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>,
>                                       ipp at pwg.org, "Farrell, Lee"
>                                       <Lee.Farrell at cda.canon.com>,
>                                       owner-ipp at pwg.org,
>                                       ptykodi at tykodi.com
>                                                                   Subject
>                                       Re: IPP> RFC: Add required
>                                       document-format values for IPP v2?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dave Whitehead wrote:
>> I think option 1 may be the way to proceed (if that's what we want to
> do!)
>> since it would then be just another document we reference in the IPPv2x
>> document.
>
> But won't option 1 (write a new standard, reference it in IPP/2.x)
> still require prototyping, etc?
>
> Plus, I don't see how we are getting around the prototype requirements
> for 2.x - we *are* adding new content WRT version numbers, and that
> requires prototyping to do any kind of testing/validation between
> implementations.
>
> --
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Michael R Sweet                        Senior Printing System Engineer
>
>



-- 
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
winter:
 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
 734-944-0094
summer:
 PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
 906-494-2434



More information about the Ipp mailing list