Gentlemen,
I fully agree with Roger Debry's observations. The IPP started out with
a very aggressive schedule, but did sacrifice that schedule to ensure
that the approach was technically sound and that the concerns of all
participants were heard. Indeed, the representatives of Microsoft were
concerned with the delays that such considerations imposed.
There is no compelling information in the new Microsoft presentation
that suggests that the working group has not properly addressed its
objectives and charter or that what has been developed will not work
effectively. I would suggest that, looking from an embedded server point
of view, which I believe will be the primary implementation mode, the
proposed changes would complicate the implementation.
I would also observe increasing apprehension that the IPP will get
bogged down in standardsitis. I see the re-emergence of alternate
internet printing schemes. Indeed, I now am starting to regret that I
discouraged several such schemes. I think that this challenge to the IPP
may delay the deployment to such an extent that it will be fatal.
Enjoy Hawaii !
W. A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
OSICOM/DPI
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger K Debry [SMTP:rdebry at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 10:21 AM
> To: ipp at pwg.org> Subject: IPP> Microsoft Presentation
>>> Well, many of you will not see this as you are sleeping in somplace in
> Maui.
> However, I want to respond to the Microsoft presentation with the IBM
> point
> of view so that it is clear going in to the meeting this afternoon.
>> The Microsoft proposal addresses two issues:
>> 1) Use a new method instead of POST
>> 2) Use XML instead of the current protocol
>> However, the major issue here is not, I believe, a technical one.
> It is a matter of timing, of process, and principle. Let me explain.
>> A year ago as we started down the path of developing a new
> standard for printing on the Internet, we agreed to pursue that
> path which would allow us to deploy the standard as quickly as
> possible. This meant, for one thing, basing our work on existing,
> well established protocols, and products. We stopped dead in our
> tracks last spring to deal with Microsoft's SWP proposal and after
> much soul searching and negotiation, we reached a compromise
> that accomodated Microsoft's views and got the standard back on
> track. The Post vs. new method debate was not a Microsoft issue
> until just a few weeks ago. Nevertheless, We have argued the firewall
> and POST vs. new method over and over again, and our decisions
> to go with POST reviewed at every IETF meeting.
>> Now here we are a month after the last call on the standard, with
> Microsoft once again asking us to stop and reset the standard.
> It is our belief that if we agree to this change, it will be at least
> 4-6
> months before we are ready to do a last call again. This is evidenced
> by the many issues raised in Bob Herriot's fine analysis of mapping
> IPP to XML. This has some serious implications ...
>> o Much of the prototyping work will have to be reset
> o The standard will be at least six months late in being approved
> o We lose credibility with the consultants and analysists we've talked
> to
> o We lose credibility with the IETF
> o We bind ourselves (I believe) too closely to one company's
> strategy and their view of how Browsers and the web play in the
> desktop.
> o We open the door for consideration of the NEXT cool technology to
> come along six months from now, or Microsoft's next O/S change.
>> We can debate the technical issues ad nauseum (and probably will),
> but I believe we need to take a stand on what we have done and say
> "It is good enough".
>>> Roger K deBry
> Senior Technical Staff Member
> Architecture and Technology
> IBM Printing Systems
> email: rdebry at us.ibm.com> phone: 1-303-924-4080