IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: Suggested workplan - host to device protocol

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: Suggested workplan - host to device protocol

Re: IPP> Re: Suggested workplan - host to device protocol

Jay Martin (jkm@underscore.com)
Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:12:47 -0500

I agree with Don.

Moreover, I think its time we in the PWG started to talk about
varying *classes* of "printers" (ie, embedded network hosts
that image jobs on media).

All too many times people want to lump all kinds of printers
into one *giant* class, expecting the full range of capabilities
to be POSSIBLE in all types of printers...including the $195
varieties sold at Wal-Mart et al. (This is where enterprise-
level printing software vendors such as Jim Walker of DAZEL
get serious heartburn.)

IMHO, those printer vendors wanting to ship a "be-all, end-all"
product in the marketplace should do just that, if they desire.
However, at the same time, those vendors should *not* be saying
things like "We can standardize on that function because it
would require too much RAM/ROM in the printer, thereby increasing
the product's price beyond its targeted price point."

Low-level host-to-device (aka "server-to-printer") protocols
such as TIPSI and CPAP allow even very low cost printers to provide
high degrees of capabilities without having to significantly increase
the internal software footprint.

Let's "Stop the Insanity!" with respect to "One Size Fits All".

...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------

don@lexmark.com wrote:
>
> Roger deBry said:
>
> >Assertions:
> >
> >(1) IPP, as it is currently defined, is the correct protocol
> > for client to server, across the Internet.
> >
> >(2) IPP, as it is currently defined, is the correct protocol
> > for client to server, across an Intranet
> >
> >(3) IPP, as it is currently defined, is the correct protocol
> > between a server and a printer which contains an
> > imbedded server.
>
> I can easily agree with Roger on #1 and #2. I think where
> the problem lies is with #3. I am not sure how broad the
> definition of "imbedded server" is? Does that mean imbedded
> IPP server or any server? All of my network printers today
> have available what we call an Internal Print Server which
> supports a wide range of protocols. Is that what you mean
> Roger? I don't think so. I think the definition needs to
> be "imbedded, spooling print server." And even then, I think
> we have lost a huge amount of control and status information
> that is available from TIPSI or even SNMP. Maybe we need
> to define some kind of passthrough for IPP that allows
> the control and status information for the down and dirty
> hardware to be retrieved and set through IPP??
>
> Comments?
>
> **********************************************
> * Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
> * Product Manager, Strategic Alliances *
> * Lexmark International *
> * 740 New Circle Rd *
> * Lexington, Ky 40550 *
> * 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
> **********************************************