IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: Does the world need a robust host-to-device

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: Does the world need a robust host-to-device

Re: IPP> Re: Does the world need a robust host-to-device

Philip Thambidurai (pthambi@ibm.net)
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 06:33:26 -0500

Yes, I think building on IPP should be considered and examined thoroughly before
other efforts are started.

Philip Thambidurai

Tom Hastings wrote:

> I agree completely with Harry here. We need to build on IPP, not start
> anew.
> In fact to further the discussion on defining such a "robust host-to-device"
> network printing protocol (probably NOT across firewalls) and to test
> whether we can really build on IPP (as Harry and I advocate):
> People that are raising issues with IPP as the "robust host-to-device
> network printing protocol when not going across firewalls",
> please indicate whether the problem is with the current IPP Model document
> or the current IPP protocol document.
> For the problems with the Model document, they may be resolvable by
> extending the Model, by, say, adding more Printer attributes and maybe
> a Set-Printer-Attributes operation? And, of course, notification.
> For problems that were with the protocol (mapping) document, the PWG might
> develop a second IPP protocol document for use in the host to printer
> connection whose semantics would be the same (extended) IPP Model document.
> This second IPP protocol mapping document would be a PWG standard, not an
> IETF standard, since the document deals with the host to printer connection
> only (and not the Internet).
> NOTE that some printers would implement both IPP protocol mappings, if they
> wanted to be used across the Internet and in the host to printer connection.
> But with the same semantic model, such a dual implementation would not be
> a big burden.
> Tom
> At 16:04 02/10/1998 PST, Harry Lewis wrote:
> >If we were to address a new, standard, host-to-device printing protocol
> >
> >> Now if somebody wants to have a separate debate about writing a really
> >> robust protocol for interfacing to printers (and I mean the real hardware
> >> not some logical abstraction) then that will suit me fine. Lets start a new
> >> track and call it, say, NLS (Not LPD and SNMP). This is what I initially
> >> wanted to do but could not persuade enough people.
> >
> >in my opinion, it should be based on the set of attributes defined for IPP
> >and the resulting device protocol should be as closely correlated with IPP
> >as possible such that the mapping is very straight forward and simple.
> >
> >Harry Lewis
> >
> >