Thanks for raising the issues about SWP. Here are my comments.
Tom
At 17:47 06/05/97 PDT, JK Martin wrote:
>After many private phone calls and email messages with several IPP
>participants--including a 1.5 hour phone call with Evan Schuman
>regarding his "Internet Printing Deal Unravels" article--it was
>suggested that I be the sacrificial lamb and ask the $64K question:
>
> "So what's wrong with the SWP proposal from Microsoft and HP?"
>
>The concerns I have heard from multiple IPP participants include the
>following (in no particular order):
>
> 1. Does not support multiple documents
>
> 2. Does not support Print-by-Reference
>
> 3. Does not support job status queries
>
> 4. Does not support job cancellation by the requesting user
No problem with not having any of the above in the lowest level (or in SWP).
You don't get any of the above with current Windows printing and it hasn't
cause customers to not use Windows. As Babak and Keith said, SWP is
only the first step which takes the current Windows printing paradigm
and puts it on the Internet.
>
> 5. Uses binary-encoded data for simple information normally encoded
> in text for HTTP-related transactions
This decision is perhaps not the best, but its not a show stopper.
Lets not use it as a "wedge" issue to abandon the agreements in San Diego.
>
>There may be more concerns floating around, but these appear to be the
>Top 5 that consistently arise in conversations.
>
>We need to resolve the issue of whether:
>
> - The SWP proposal should represent THE final IPP specification, or
>
> - The SWP proposal represents "Level 1" conformance to an IPP spec
> having two conformance levels, or
>
> - The SWP proposal is inadequate and should be abandoned in favor
> of a single conformance level represented by the existing documents
>
>The purpose of this message is to get these concerns out on the table
>NOW so that we can resolve them as quickly as possible. (Please don't
>flame at me for this message...wait until I state my opinions... ;-)
>
>There has been considerable traffic on the list regarding the concern
>for the lack of Print-by-Reference. Let's get discussion started on
>the other concerns.
>
>Incidentally, more than one participant made a statement to this effect:
>
> "If two conformance levels are specified--yet Microsoft only implements
> the low-end Level 1 spec--then it is pointless for us to work on a
> Level 2 implementation given current and past market dynamics.
>
> "Therefore, we should stop further IPP development and simply bless
> the SWP proposal and run with it, since it will be the only pervasive
> implementation in the marketplace, anyway."
Maybe I'm naive, but I think that Microsoft will support full IPP in their
follow on release. Its just a matter of timing. Had we had IPP all done
and the NT 5.0 development group had the resources, they would have put
full IPP into NT 5.0. Basically, the NT strategy is to keep adding
functionality. Why do you think that Microsoft would stop with SWP?
Any system that can't cancel a job is not going to be viable in the market
place very long. So Microsoft will be forced into doing more in the
future by their customer base (and IPP).
I look at SWP as being half full, not half empty. SWP makes IPP more real,
rather than detracting from IPP.
Carl-Uno made the suggestion that maybe SWP could be a separate informational
RFC (from Microsoft or from the PWG, TBD), which is a subset of IPP.
Then IPP could avoid having two conformance levels, if we cannot agree
to have two conformance levels.
>
>Your comments to this statement are also encouraged, whether pro or con.
>
> ...jay
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
>-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
>-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
>-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>