P1394 Mail Archive: Re: P1394> EMAIL Poll

P1394 Mail Archive: Re: P1394> EMAIL Poll

Re: P1394> EMAIL Poll

Atsushi_Nakamura (atsnaka@bsd.canon.co.jp)
Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:59:20 +0900

snip>

I changed the order of the questions around to explain my position;

FIRST,

> 3) Opinions on multiple printing protocols;
>
( ) There should be ONLY 1 printing protocol in any case and any application.
( X ) 2 "or more" protocols are ACCEPTABLE if necessary for different situations
( ) I PREFER more than 2 protocols
( ) Other (describe)__________________

- I do not PREFER it, but I think there will be more than 2 "standard (=non-vendor unique)"
printing protocols, for different applications (PC printing, direct-printing, IP1394, AV/C etc.)
and I do not think it is a good idea to force it to be one at least THIS point in time.

Based on this thinking,

I FOCUSED THE SCOPE OF THE REPLY BELOW ON THE WORK OF THE PWG-1394 project,
NOT 1394 PRINTING IN GENERAL, SO MY OPINION BELOW DOES NOT APPLY TO
PEER TO PEER DIRECT-PRINTING.

> What is your opinion on the best way to move the discussion forward?

- THE PWG-1394 PROJECT SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON PC PRINTING, and
should aim to nail down the basic PC printing scheme and solve basic issues in
a short time period.

In April of 97, when PWG and PWG-C discussed about the working together,
it was decided that the PWG would concentrate on PC printing, and the PWG-C
would concentrate on direct-print.
My impression is that the scope of recent discussion in PWG side has become
somewhat out of range from the original intent, encompassing the PWG-C's area
of peer to peer direct-print.
The scope of the PWG printing profile should be narrowed to PC printing
(if not for the final solution, at least until a draft solution stabilizes)
Even though the charter may note direct printing as a scope, please recall that
this charter is a unified charter for both PWG and PWG-C, and that is the reason
for the large scope.

NOW THE RANKING;

> ===================================================================
>
> 1. Please rank the following proposals according to your interest level using the following scale ( 10 = High level
> of interest vs. 0 = No interest).
>

( ) 1284.4 Over Data FIFO Architecture (DFA)
( ) 1284.4 Over SBP-2
( 3 ) Direct Printing Protocol - (current PWG-C proposal 0.71)
(10) SBP-2 Native - (current PWG proposal 0.1c)
(10) Other (describe)_ HPT proposal by Canon

> 2. Please provide background comments on your ranking.

-I ranked SBP-2 native related proposals as 10 because
SBP-2 is a well-defined, good assymetric transport, which
is suitable for PC printing. Native is the natural way of building
a efficient upper layer (command set) for SBP-2.

HPT by Canon is one solution of SBP-2 native, and should be treated
equally for comparison and discussion with other SBP-2 native
proposals.

I put in only 3 pts for DPP(Thin protocol) because
I restricted the reply to the scope of PWG work.
The 3 pts stands for my opinion that a discussion is valuable to
consider the THIN protocol (as is) as a PC printing transport
candidiate.
(REASON FOR "AS IS"
.....In case PWG chooses SBP-2, we still don't intend
to change the SBP-2 spec itself to achieve printing, right ?
The thinking is the same for THIN transport. Consideration
on using THIN should be made without drastically changing the THIN.
The changes are probably up to the originators of THIN ->PWG-C.)

> Why do you prefer to use the given solution?
-See above

> Does the the given solution meet the existing requirements?

-Basically, but not all.
I STILL do not see a really fixed, (voted?) requirement list for PC printing.
For example, is symmetric a must or want for PC printing ?
(incl. the question, how does PWG define symmetric?)

> What issues are you aware of (if any) with the given solution?

-Many people mention OS support as one of the main reasons
for choosing SBP-2,but also mention concern about whether
the "OS version of SBP-2" is sufficient for printer usage.
I think this is one issue which should be solved with high
priority IF we are going to mention OS support as one of the reasons.

> Other comments?

If this was a PWG-"C" poll, my answer would be;

( ) 1284.4 Over Data FIFO Architecture (DFA)
( ) 1284.4 Over SBP-2
(10) Direct Printing Protocol - (current PWG-C proposal 0.71)
( ) SBP-2 Native - (current PWG proposal 0.1c)
(10) Other (describe)_ AV/C printing (PWG-C SWG2)

-----------------------------------------
Atsushi Nakamura
-----------------------------------------

BJ Technology Develpoment 22,
Canon Inc.

53 Imai Kami-cho
Nakahara-Ku, Kawasaki-shi
postal no. 211

tel:+81-3-44-733-6111(ext.5593)
+81-3-44-739-6634(direct)
fax:+81-3-44-739-6756
email(1):Atsushi_Nakamura@cbj.canon.co.jp
email(2):atsnaka@bsd.canon.co.jp
-----------------------------------------