below follows the revised proposed charter text for IPP, based on our
discussions in San Jose and follow up discussions in the group afterwards.
The references to producing mappings to HTTP and LDAP have been deleted,
although some PWG members are likely to be working on those subject as
part of their prototyping efforts.
The subject of RFC 1179 was further discussed, and it turns out that not
a single vendor of printers or print servers has expressed any interest
in spending time and effort on the subject. Contrary to opinions expressed
in San Jose, RFC 1179 is not used by millions of users; they use one or
several of the mostly incompatible variations of LPR. One PWG member has
dealt with writing gateways between 28 (!) different variations. The printer
industry considers RFC 1179 as historic and has no interest in spending
the time to try to make a proper IETF standard out of this RFC, that was
never even considered for the standards track (only informational).
Does any of you still have objections to leave RFC 1179 be?
I hope that we can now get your official OK for the WG, so that the real
work can be continued without further delay.
I have also included a copy of the minutes from the BOF meeting in case
you have not already picked them up from the IPP archive.
Best Regards and a Merry Christmas,
Carl-Uno
Carl-Uno Manros
Xerox Corporation
(send from home)
---(DRAFT 12/23/96)
IETF Internet Printing Protocol (ipp) WG
Chair(s): Carl-Uno Manros <manros@cp10.es.xerox.com> Applications Area Director(s): Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Harald Alvestrand <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no> Area Advisor: TBD
Mailing List Information: General Discussion: <ipp@pwg.org> To Subscribe: <ipp-request@pwg.org> Archive: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/
Editors: Scott Isaacson <scott_isaacson@novell.com> Robert Herriot <robert.herriot@eng.sun.com> Don Wright <don@lexmark.com> Description of Working Group:
The goal of this working group is to define a new application level distributed printing protocol as well as defining naming and service registration attributes for printing. The protocol shall support a global, distributed environment where print service users (clients, applications, drivers, etc.) cooperate and interact with print service providers (servers, printers, gateways, etc.).
The working group will leverage existing (and emerging) technologies for: authentication, authorization, privacy, and commercial transactions. The working group will describe a generic directory schema that supports printing, which can be mapped to existing standards for directories.
The working group shall strive to coordinate its activities with other printing-related standards bodies.
The new job submission protocol should strive not to preclude any types of output devices (e.g., fax, printer, gateway). Also, the working group will define extensibility paths to maximize interoperability and minimize conflict.
The latest IETF requirements for management, security, and inter- nationalization shall be covered.
Deliverables and Milestones:
Done - Mailing list and archive
November 1996 - Submit first set of Internet-Drafts December 1996 - BOF in IETF meeting in San Jose, CA, USA
March 1997 - Submit Internet-Drafts
April 1997 - Review of specification in IETF meeting in Memphis, TN, USA
May 1997 - At least 2 implemented prototypes
May 1997 - Submit document(s) to the IESG for Proposed Standard
Current Internet-Drafts:
IPP-requirements: <draft-wright-ipp-req-01-txt> IPP-draft: <draft-isaacson-ipp-inf0-00.txt>
Planned RFCs:
Internet Printing Protocol: Requirements and Scenarios (Informational) Internet Printing Protoco/1.0: Model and Semantics (Standards Track) Internet Printing Protoco/1.0: MIME Encoding (Standards Track) Internet Printing Protoco/1.0: Directory Schema (Standards Track)
------
Internet Printing Protocol Birds of a Feather Session
December 12, 1996
Minutes taken by: Don Wright <don@lexmark.com>
The meeting was called to order at 1:03 PM
Carl-Uno Manros (proposed WG Chair) reviewed the agenda for the meeting
Carl-Uno gave a short talk about the lack of IETF standards for printing. He also discussed how this effort started under the Printer Working Group.
Don Wright presented an overview of the Internet printing requirements. The following were significant issues raised by the attendees: - firewalls - there are no "operators", only users - using HTTP as a transport - LPR/LPD/RFC1179 discussion
Carl-Uno presented the charter - Will address needs of normal, end-user roles - Will not address needs of the operator and administrator roles - The group will strive to build on existing standards and technologies - Would like to use existing standards for directories - The submitting protocol should not exclude other devices (fax, etc.)
Harald Alvestrand stated that HTTP 1.0 is not an IETF standard. HTTP 1.1 is a proposed standard that might be applicable to IPP.
Suggestion from the meeting -- don't explicitly tie IPP to HTTP.
Keith Moore: Should there be a scenario statement of how to use IPP without a directry server?
Carl-Uno presented the planned drafts list which included:
Requirements (Informational) MIME Types for IPP (Standards Track) Application Protocol - IPP (Standards Track) IPP on HTTP (Standards Track) IPP Directory Support -LDAP Object Classes for Printers (Standards Track)
Carl-Uno presented the deliverables and milestones for the project.
There was a discussion as to whether the group should do the work on the various drafts in parallel versus serial. Several combinations of serial and parallel were also discussed. No conclusion.
Scott Isaacson presented the IPP protocol document. The following issues were raised: - Will the protocol support printer configuration - No, not in 1.0 - Continued discussion on using HTTP.
Open Discussion:
1) Ray Lutz raised a concern that there was some overlap between the work proposed by the proposed fax group and the proposed print group. This overlap will be assessed by the directors.
2) HTTP issue again. Suggested using specific HTML as well to more strong tie IPP to HTTP.
3) A concern was raised about running over HTTP to get through firewalls. This plan was called "bogus" by one on the attendees.
4) Steve Zilles reminded the group that HTTP can be used in both directions to not only send the job but also to retrieve status, etc.
5) Suggestion to define the MIME objects and encoding first.
6) Harald Alverstrand wanted the charter to be simplified by removing some of the work items such as removing the LDAP mapping and the HTTP mapping.
7) More discussion about using RFC1179. Someone suggested the group should fix RFC 1179 as a part of this project. There was no interest on the part of the core group to do this.
Carl-Uno asked for a show of hands as to whether this effort was worthy of a being charter. Approximately half of the attendees felt it was. When asked who thought the effort shouldn't be charter, only 1 person raised his hand. That person's convern was that the proposed charter was too broad.
The meeting ended at 3:08PM
---