Of course it is assumed that any IPP 1.0/1.1 client could use a dial up
>But the original name was IPP2FAX of something along thoselines, and I
wasn't under the >impression we had moved all that far from thatdirection.
There was some discussion in >Minnesota about the name, and I went away
thinking that we were trying to make better >faxing and a smaller
implementation of IPP to make that
>possible. If this also helps simplify the remote printing solution, great!
Well the goal is the "reliable transmission and reception of documents
rendered in their
original form." etc. see below for other issues
We really should not be talking about a "smaller implementation of IPP"
thats really not the case. IPP is very very flexible in how it can be
implemented. Carl-Uno Manros the IPP Chair demonstrated at the IETF meeting
a total IPP implementation in print server form (with Ethernet) that was no
larger than a pack of cigarettes. The IPP documentation can be intimidating
to review, at first, but it quickly becomes clear that it is not necessary
to implement every single feature available.
If you do not wish to support certain features.. fine. The exchange of
supported values and attributes is what is important. The question is what
values and attributes need to be augmented or their behaivor modified to
satisify our goals.
>Maybe what we need to do is have Richard restate the overall goal to remind
>us what the charter should be striving to achieve...I will back off on the
fax issue if I am out
Well when you use the fax word ...let me remind folks that there are some
Layer 9 issues involved as in (with apologies to the U. of Colorado folks
who sell those great t-shirts at IETF meetings)
9. Political < You are here
So far I think we are balancing things rather nicely.
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : email@example.com