Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Moore [SMTP:paulmo@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 1998 9:41 AM
To: 'Tom Hastings'; Harry Lewis; jkm@underscore.com
Cc: ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> Re: Does the world need a robust
host-to-device network prin
Building a second protocol based on the model is the worst of
both worlds:-
- It is a separate completely non-interoperable protocol (being
based on the
same model means nothing in wire terms), would a printer do
both?
- It constrains the second protocol to only doing things that
IPP can do.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Hastings [SMTP:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 5:23 PM
> To: Harry Lewis; jkm@underscore.com
> Cc: ipp@pwg.org; Paul Moore
> Subject: Re: IPP> Re: Does the world need a robust
host-to-device
> network prin
>
> 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
> >
> >