IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Does the world need a robust host-to-device network prin

RE: IPP> Does the world need a robust host-to-device network prin

Wagner, William (WWagner@wal.osicom.com)
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:59:32 -0500

I appreciate Carl-Uno's statement. (I also happen to agree) . Much of
the traffic on the list of late has been negative to the extent that
many observers who have not actively participated get the impression
that IPP is beyond recovery. I know that people are more inclined to
voice objections than support, but I think that some more supporting
comments (rather than just defensive responses) might put the actual
situation in better perspective.

W. A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
OSICOM/DPI

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl-Uno Manros [SMTP:cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 7:04 PM
> To: ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: IPP> Does the world need a robust host-to-device
> network printing protocol?
>
>
> I want to remind you all that we stated as our intent when we started
> work on IPP V1.0, that we were trying to solve 80% of the problem in
> the first version, which means that we conciously left out a number of
> things to be resolved later.
>
> We also stated that we were trying to concentrate on solving the user
> to what-ever problem in our first version, leaving some of the device
> and management type problems for a future version.
>
> Also remember, that some of the intial reactions in the IETF was that
> we were trying to do far too MUCH in IPP V1.0, while now we seem to be
> hearing that there is too much missing.
> You cannot have your cake and eat it.....
>
> I do not buy the argument that HTTP is bad, even if you choose to
> use IPP to acces your print device. I think there is enough evidence
> from prototyping at that stage to show that it works pretty well.
> Some printer vendors started putting in HTTP in their printers to
> do configuration and management even before we started talking about
> using it for IPP.
>
> I would hope that the current IPP approach can be used as a common
> basis for developing both client to print server and print server to
> device communication, even though I agree that IPP V1.0 was developed
> to primarily support the former. If this results in an additional
> protocol optimized for print server to device, so be it. I expect that
>
> any printer that is aimed for shared use on the network would want to
> include the IPP server functionality anyway, so that leaves the
> discussion about how big a share of remaining printers would really
> need an additional simpler protocol that is optimized for the device.
>
> My 2 cents...
>
> Carl-Uno
>
> Carl-Uno Manros
> Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
> 701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
> Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
> Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com