Jay's very practical concern about can a printing specification not
implemented by Microsoft and HP ever succeed must be considered.
Microsoft and HP have a history of pushing through their "alternate"
solutions just as a specification nears completion. I would have thought
that their extensive participation and the previous round of compromises
intended to incorporate the ideas of these two giants would have may
unnecessary this "end-play". Apparently, it has not.
The group can continue, and can put into effect a working protocol for
inter/intra net printing. It can do this with or without IESG sanction
and with or without Microsoft/HP participation. The question of whether
this is a viable action is one for marketeers, not engineers.
W. A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
OSICOM/DPI
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Martin [SMTP:jkm@underscore.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 1998 2:53 PM
> To: ipp@pwg.org
> Cc: walker@dazel.com
> Subject: Re: IPP> Consensus on sending our drafts to the IESG
>
> I would like to go on record as sharing many (if not most) of
> the views and comments Jim Walker has posted.
>
> Given the current "culture" that has seemingly developed within
> the IPP group, Jim should be commended on being so brave as to
> suggest some of the views that some may describe as "nay-saying".
>
> I must admit that I am a member of the group Jim refers to in:
>
> > "We know that this draft will get rejected anyways, so
> > why don't we send it in, collect all of the comments at
> > one time, and in the meantime we can think some more
> > about XML".
>
> While I had strongly proposed that the current drafts be submitted
> as-is for IETF review, the fact is, I really don't like the
> IPP protocol as it is currently defined. (Wow, I said it.
> Now I feel better... ;-)
>
> One final note: whether IPP (as currently defined) is better or
> worse than XML is really a useless discussion, IMHO.
>
> Without Microsoft's aggressive support, any *pervasive* deployment
> of an Internet-like printing protocol will likely fail within the
> general domain. If Microsoft balks at IPP v1.0 (and they surely
> have made this comment, repeatedly!), then does anyone actually
> believe they will deploy it?
>
> I have longed for the day in which the Printer Industry as a whole
> would stand up, band together, and produce something in concert
> with the sum of the industry's players. But, after waiting some
> five years for this act to occur, I now find that this belief is
> but a pipe dream.
>
> Let's face it. As long as the printer industry continues to gate
> itself on the progress and initiative of Microsoft and HP, then
> true innovation deployed on a global scale--in which the efforts
> are conducted on an honestly "level playing field"--is likely
> to NEVER happen, at least not in our lifetime. (Of course, the
> Department of Justice could change all of that... ;-)
>
> I would like to publicly challenge Microsoft to put forth an
> "Internet printing" proposal in which it can demonstrate true
> openness for allowing the printer industry to participate in
> it's development and deployment.
>
> I, for one, have no problem in working within an environment
> that has a "benevolent dictator". After all, my company exists
> to make products and profit from that effort. Having a single
> "Master" of a given effort is fine...so long as the Master is
> open and honest with its "serfs".
>
> Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.
>
> ...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 --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> James Walker wrote:
> >
> > Roger K Debry wrote:
> > >
> > > Not having been in Maui, I'd be interested in what
> > > you believe the "many other" issues are.
> >
> > Sorry about the delay in the response...
> >
> > There were several other issues that were discussed, some of which
> > I thought came up during the phone conference (alas, we all know
> > how well that technology worked :-).
> >
> > At any rate here are some that I remember (not meant to be an
> > exhaustive list)...
> >
> > o Using a new HTTP method rather than overloading POST.
> > Nuff said.
> >
> > o Concern over using HTTP at all... there was a rumor going
> > around that the IESG was poised to reject the current
> > IPP drafts because HTTP was being used as the protocol.
> > In fact, part of the discussion was along the lines of
> > "We know that this draft will get rejected anyways, so
> > why don't we send it in, collect all of the comments at
> > one time, and in the meantime we can think some more
> > about XML".
> >
> > There also seemed to be some underriding current of
> > uneasiness from some of the group regarding HTTP.
> > This is just a subjective opinion of mine, but there
> > were comments made like "now, if we had just used a
> > simple socket-level protocol..."
> >
> > o IPP as an embedded printer protocol versus a print server
> > protocol. There was a lot of discussion about whether
> > we are trying to accomplish too much by having one
> > protocol for both the embedded printer and the print
> > server. For example, there is a natural tension between
> > the space requirements that the embedded printer crowd
> > (rightfully) defends, and the "elegance" and
> > "extensibility" arguments that the print server crowd
> > espouses. I think that the XML discussion, as well as
> > the original text versus binary protocol discussion from
> > over a year ago, are valid examples of this tension.
> >
> > o IPP versus SNMP. Along the same lines of some of the issues
> > above were discussions about overlap between IPP and SNMP.
> > There was at least one suggestion that IPP should perhaps
> > just be a job submission (and cancellation?) protocol,
> > and use the existing Printer and Job Monitoring MIBs for
> > determining printer and job status.
> >
> > I was also concerned about comments from at least one
> > representative from a large printer vendor that indicated
> > very little interest in IPP as a whole. "If we already
> > have a way to get jobs in the printer (using, say, a
> > simple bi-directional TCP connection) and a way to monitor
> > those jobs, as well as the printer (SNMP), what good does
> > IPP do for us?"
> >
> > These are just some random recollections. I do not mean to be
> > a gloom-and-doom'er, but I did want to document some of the
> > observations that I made from my seat.
> >
> > ...walker
> >
> > --
> > Jim Walker <walker@dazel.com>
> > System Architect/DAZEL Wizard
> > DAZEL Corporation, Austin, TX