Respose to Minutes

Respose to Minutes

Respose to Minutes

Bill Wagner bwagner at digprod.com
Tue Sep 3 19:52:20 EDT 1996


     Looking through the PMP/PWG notes, some issues are not quite clear.
     
     1. Evolution of the Interfaces Group. 
     
     The resolution is not identified. Presumably the intent is to 
     reference RFC1213. What about the use of the extended interface types 
     in RFC1573?
     
     2. Serial Number and Administratively Assigned Name.
     
     Can we put these in a separate group so that they can be conditionally 
     mandatory? I guess we can end the fiction that the MIB is for all 
     printers. Obviously it is only for higher end network printers. The 
     argument that components have serial numbers is not valid, since it is 
     only high-end optional components that do. Obviously, I would have 
     voted against this.
     
     3. Localization
     
     I know I may not always be clear, but I cannot figure out how one of 
     my emails was taken to be a comment on localization. Hope it was a 
     good discussion.
     
     4. Channel Type 
     
     As Jay pointed out, the e-mail requested changes between port 9100 and 
     AppSocket do not reflect what was originally submitted by Adobe or HP. 
     The changes and the origin of these changes should be identified.
     
     5. Standard Printer Adapter Project
     
     Don has not yet started the discussion but, as a supplier of NIC cards 
     to OEM's I think it a poor idea.
     
        a. DPI has a 'standard' NIC design (DPO), supported by many 
     controller design houses and which can be second sourced. 
     Peerless/Emulex have the PSIO which, I understand, is also offered as 
     a standard. Several other companies produce 1284-type devices. 
     
        b. Large companies such as HP and Lexmark have their own 
     implementations, and are typically loath to share them.
     
        c. The demands upon network printers (such as the Printer MIB) will 
     tend to obsolete the idea of networking a personal printer with a 
     card. The trend will be to on-controller network support with or 
     without network coprocessors.
     
     Therefore, I suggest that 
        a: the niche market is already covered and has several different 
     implementations and suppliers to choose from.
        b: any new standard would, presumably not match anyone's existing 
     implementation. Therefore, it would create yet another configuration 
     to be implemented. And being designed by committee, it would probably 
     be suboptimal.
        c: however, there may be some rational in attempting to define a 
     print/MFP API for embedded network interface implementations. 
     
     Bill Wagner, DPI



More information about the Pwg mailing list