IPP> ADM - Minutes from PWG IPP phone conference, 3/25/98

IPP> ADM - Minutes from PWG IPP phone conference, 3/25/98

Tom Hastings hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Wed Mar 25 20:57:45 EST 1998


<bigger>Minutes from PWG IPP Phone Conference 980325


============================================




Notes taken by Carl-Uno Manros and Tom Hastings.




Attendees:




Ron Bergman    	Dataproducts		


Tom Hastings  	Xerox	


Carl-Uno Manros	Xerox	


Ira Mcdonald  	High North	


Randy Turner  	Sharp	


Don Wright    	Lexmark	


Jim Walker		DAZEL


Peter Zehler	Xerox


Harry Lewis		IBM


Jay Martin		Underscore




Agenda:




Carl-Uno Manros led the meeting. For today's agenda topics, he said 
that


he would like to revisit the IPP notification and the host-to-device home 


work assignments and DL discussions.




Status of IPP in the IESG and IPP LA Agenda:




Carl-Uno reported that contacts with Keith Moore make it clear that we
will 


not see any feedback from him or the IESG in time for IETF41 next week,


and probably not before the PWG IPP meeting in Portland either. The


IETF41 IPP agenda is therefore limited to the discussion of IPP 


notifications and mapping of directory attributes to SLP and LDAP.




Carl-Uno then made a quick review of other sessions in IETF41 that


might be of interest to IPP WG members coming to LA.




Notifications:




Then the discussion of IPP notifications started. Carl-Uno suggested 


that we already have a number of inputs that could be used to work


out a solution for the simple kind of user notifications intended


in the IETF IPP work item. It was clear from the following discussion


that the PWG needs to view notifications in a wider scenario that


takes into account host-to-device, administrator etc. requirements,


but that this work could be done in parallel to developing a simple


notification solution for IPP 1.0. The notification specification is


expected to take the form of a standards track IETF RFC, which 


specifies additional attributes to what is in the Model document. 


Although the notification specification will be optional to 


implement, we should aim for it to become a standards track document.




Discussions were held around how much flexibility the user needs to 


have in specifying what should be returned in a notification. Some


suggested that standardized packages should be enough, but there 


were also requirements to have full flexibility to specify the exact 


attributes (including private attribute extensions) to be returned. 


Unless the solution gets too complex, it looks like we should expect 


a few standard packages to be specified and supported, but that 


implementations could optionally support attribute level specification.




There was also discussion about the format of the notification.


Everybody seemed to agree that it should be in the form of a MIME 


type, which is identical or very similar to the application/ipp


Mime type and should look more or less identical to the 


List-Job-Attribute response format. There also seemed to be agreement 


that the life cycle of a notification request is the same as for the 


print job.




As part of this discussion, Tom Hastings introduced the DL draft on 


how a directory attribute syntax could be defined. Bob Herriot and


Roger deBry had worked with Tom on this, but had not yet seen the 


current version, when had been written by Tom. There was opposition from 


Jim Walker and others about the parallel attribute value approach 


taken in the proposal and Tom undertook to work out a full proposal 


based on the original idea of introducing a new syntax for comparison.




Carl-Uno when summing up the discussion about notifications asked


for volunteers to write up a proposal based on the earlier text 


in the model document, the current requirements document, Tom's


revised proposal for the directory attribute, and today's 


discussion. Tom Hastings and Harry Lewis will try to have a draft


ready for discussion in Portland (April 8-9) with Jim Walker's review,


if there is time.




PWG Host-to-Device protocol discussion:




The next agenda item was the alternative approaches to arrive


at a suitable solution for a host-to-device protocol (which is 


not intended as an IETF standard).




Don Wright introduced his PWG draft called "IPP to IEEE 1284.1 


Mapping". This describes how IEEE 1284.1, a.k.a. TIP/SI, could be used


to transfer IPP attributes and document data from a print server


to a print device. A few minor extensions would be needed to 


the IEEE TIP/SI standard itself to support the proposal. In addition,


the PWG would develop a PWG standard for a IPP Logical Unit (LU) 


that works with TIP/SI that accepts IPP attributes directly.  


Areas for further study would be internationalization and security, 


plus an explicit mapping of TIP/SI to TCP/IP. Don wanted to have 


further discussion of the document in the Portland IPP meeting 


before investing more work in refining the draft.




Randy Turner then introduced his proposal on how to map IPP


directly on TCP/IP, which he claimed would solve most of the 


problems that have been stated against using IPP as a 


host-to-device protocol. The following discussion indicated 


that people wanted the two channel approach that is used in


TIP/SI and CPAP (one for bi-directional control information 


and one for data) to be added to Randy's proposal. Randy undertook 


to have a revised version of the proposal ready for discussion in 


Portland. It will introduce a second pull-only data channel 


and rewrite some of the proposal for a new URI scheme.




Meeting adjourned at 12:30 PM.




There will not be any phone conferences for the next two weeks 


due to the IETF41 and PWG IPP meetings. The next teleconference 


will be held on April 15 at 10:00am PST.




</bigger>



More information about the Ipp mailing list