Something seems to have gone wrong with the version published to the DL (it
somehow got truncated), so I repost the full text again below.
PS. Also took the opportunity to fix my and Steve Zilles names and a couple
of other obvious typos in the process. DS.
Carl-Uno
-- Internet Printing Project Meeting Minutes April 3, 1997 Austin, Texas
The meeting started on April 3rd, 1997 at 8:40AM led by Carl-Uno Manros. The attendees were:
Ron Bergman - Data Products Lee Farrell - Canon Don Wright - Lexmark Scott Isaacson - Novell Jeff Copeland - QMS Bob Pentecost - HP Dave Kuntz - HP Tom Hastings - Xerox Harry Lewis - IBM Roger Debry - IBM William Wagner - Digital Products Robert Herriot - Sun Carl-Uno Manros - Xerox Keith Carter - IBM Jim Walker - Dazel Chuck Adams - Tektronix Stuart Rowley - Kyocera Peter Zehler - Xerox David McMaster - TrueSpectra Jeff Barnett - IBM Jerry Hadsell - IBM Steve Zilles - Adobe Randy Turner - Sharp Paul Moore - Microsoft Rob Rhoads - Intel
The following proposed agenda was reviewed and approved:
1) Protocol 2) Security 3) Model 4) Prototyping 5) Directory 6) Internationalization
PROTOCOL Randy Turner presented his proposal "HTTP 1.1 as a Transport for the Internet Printing Protocol which is available as <draft-turner-ipp-trans-develop-00.txt> on the PWG server and is also an IETF internet draft.
Issues and comments:
1. Should we suggest a specific URL format as the default for printers (www.printers.company.com or www.company.com/printers or something else)? 2. Discussion again on "Why HTTP" - no resolution 3. Why would we want to map IPP to different transports? How would different implementations mapped to different transports ever interoperate? 4. Is HTTP a "stop-gap" solution? If so, when should we start talking about a longer term solution? 5. Some of Randy's proposals would require some changes to the Model document. 6. Implementation of Randy's proposal by Sharp preceded the development of the IPP Model document. 7. Under Randy's proposal, he recommends that if HTML pages are created for non-IPP clients (like an existing browser) that we standardize the type of controls, etc. are present on the HTML pages. 8. Discussion on whether an IPP over HTTP implementation should create HTML pages (presenting status and capabilities) that turn off caching of that page. 9. Randy's proposal for an IPP server requires only a subset of the full HTTP/1.1 RFC.
Steve Zilles presented a proposal of an architecture for the IPP protocol. This was an interactive session where Steve presented his thoughts in a block diagram form. As of the meeting, this proposal has not yet been documented in a paper.
Steve presented an issues list related to protocol:
1. Coded format - content type header * form data * IPP unique 2. Transport * HTTP * HTTP Subset * Something else 3. Where encoding operations happen: * Host * other 4. One Message or Multiple Messages * Single POST * CREATE, SEND 5. Printer status during sending 6. Response to create * Job data URL * Query URL * Modify URL 7. Conformance requirements of >1 of protocol 8. Alignment between Model and Protocol documents 9. Use of accept headers to select * language * character set * encoding 10. No discussion of firewalls 11. What to say in Memphis?
A major discussion occurred focused on having two protocol mappings: one that is browser-based (HTTP/HTML) and one that is a richer, peer-to-peer printing solution to replace LPD. How do we provide interoperability? Should we define interoperability? Are we solving two problems? There was no consensus on this issue, further discussion will be on the mailing list. Steve Zilles will report this lack on consensus at the IETF meeting in Memphis.
Protocol Work Items and Owners:
Document a transport protocol and provide information as to why that is a good choice * HTTP 1.1 (Steve Zilles, Roger Debry) * HTTP Subset (Randy Turner) * IPP (Paul Moore)