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?

Michael R Sweet msweet at apple.com
Thu Jul 31 17:07:38 EDT 2008


Ira McDonald wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I agree with Dave Whitehead that required document formats (or any other
> new IPP requirements) belong in a separate standards-track PWG spec.

Again, we're already changing the ipp-versions-supported and the IPP
header to have 2.x version numbers.  Doing a separate spec that is
literally 8 pages of boilerplate and 1 page of real content seems like
a lot of overhead for this!

> 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.

Keep in mind that CUPS already supports 3 out of the 4 formats I've
proposed.  However, I'd argue that we need at least one printer
vendor to implement it as well...

Also, given the mess we have today, I think we really (really!) need
to do interop testing and come up with a standard test suite that
vendors can use to self-validate.  (CUPS already has much of this in
its "make check" automated tests to validate its IPP/1.1 conformance)

> ...
> 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/2.x with no required document formats is no better than IPP/1.1.

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

True.  The question is, who will upgrade to IPP/2.0 if there is no
compelling reason to do so?

-- 
______________________________________________________________________
Michael R Sweet                        Senior Printing System Engineer



More information about the Ipp mailing list