>----------
>From: rdebry@us.ibm.com[SMTP:rdebry@us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Monday, January 06, 1997 10:49 AM
>To: Rturner@sharplabs.com
>Cc: ipp@pwg.org
>Subject: Re: IPP> What is it we really need?
>
>Classification:
>Prologue:
>Epilogue:
>
>Randy, can you help us all to understand the "cost" issues? I for one do not
>know what the cost of implementing HTTP or HTTP-Lite would be. What I do
>know
>is that there is lots of HTTP server code out there that I can re-use, thus
>substantially shortening my development time. Furthermore, if a printer
>manufacturer puts HTTP in the printer to support configuration (as Tektronics
>has and others have said they will do) then it will be there anyway, so why
>not
>use it? And, while I agree that we need to be careful about tying printing
>protocols and the web together, I would hate to see us re-inventing (and
>reimplementing) everything that already exists in HTTP when we need it.
>Finally, I think that the most compelling argument is the one of wanting to
>see
>ubiquitous support across the major industry platforms -- both as clients and
>as print servers. HTTP WILL BE supported on all of the interesting clients
>and server platforms! How do we convince the platform vendors to build
>support
>for a new protocol???
>
>
>---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 01/06/97
>11:36
>AM ---------------------------
>
> ipp-owner @ pwg.org
> 01/06/97 11:00 AM
>Please respond to rturner@sharplabs.com@internet
>
>
>To: ipp @ pwg.org@internet
>cc: moore @ cs.utk.edu@internet
>Subject: Re: IPP> What is it we really need?
>
>Keith Moore wrote:
>>
>> ..snip..snip..
>>
>> If nothing else, printing protocols and the web each need to evolve
>> separately; we need to be very careful about how we tie them together.
>>
>> Keith
>
>
>I think we need to decide whether or not we are doing IPP or WPP
>(Internet Printing Protocol or Web Printing Protocol)
>
>The statement made by Keith (included in this msg above) I think is
>crucial. I haven't thought about the ramifications (and permutations)
>of tying a printing protocol to another N-numbered set of technologies
>like HTTP, LDAP, CGI, and HTML (if we decide to use forms). It looks
>like it might be more than we want to get into, at least from an
>interoperability and maintenance standpoint.
>
>At any rate, we need to think about someone that wants to do
>printing across the internet, but does not want to be burdened with
>the cost of implementing HTTP (or even HTTP-lite).
>
>In this same vein, it would be very difficult to account for IPP
>usage if we "hide" the IPP protocol within a set of HTTP accesses,
>using the HTTP TCP port number, for example. This echoes the
>ideas expressed by Alex earlier, and would also allow net-admins to
>create policies that enable/disable HTTP and/or printing as
>separate applications, something that sounds desirable IMHO.
>
>Randy
>(Good luck sorting this out in New Mexico ;)
>
>--
>Randy Turner
>Network Architect
>Sharp Laboratories of America
>rturner@sharplabs.com
>
>