IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Host to device

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Host to device

RE: IPP> Host to device

Turner, Randy (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Fri, 3 Apr 1998 20:27:22 -0800

-----Original Message-----
From: imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com
[SMTP:imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com]
Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 8:24 PM
To: ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> Host to device

..snip..

Mapping IPP over multiple non-Internet transports is entirely
suitable
for an IETF 'standards track' document. The IETF gave up on
Internet
suite everywhere a LONG time ago.

<RT>
There is still a presence within the IESG, and at least two on
the IAB that have not been "assimilated" into other transports. They are
still IP bigots (kinda like myself). To wit, Keith Moore, during the
Internet FAX WG meeting this meeting was wearing a T-shirt that had only
one phrase on it..."IP: necessary and sufficient".

One interesting side note, I noticed he was also running "Linux"
on his laptop, not Win95 like most everyone else was running....hmmm....

Randy

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald (High North)


>----------------------------------------------------------------------<
>Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 16:16:48 PST
>To: "Gordon, Charles" <CGordon@wal.osicom.com>, ipp@pwg.org
>From: Carl-Uno Manros <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>
>Subject: RE: IPP> Host to device
>Cc: Rdebry@Us.Ibm.Com, Ipp@pwg.org
>
>Charles,
>
>You are right that if we see this only from an IETF
perspective,
>we do not need to care about all the other transfer protocols.
>However, it is of general interest to members of the PWG to
also
>look for solutions that go beyond the IETF scope.
>
>I expect that when we write up a solution for extending the IPP
>within the IETF to cover IPP notifications, such a proposal
>will be limited to the TCP/IP case.
>
>Carl-Uno
>
>At 01:56 PM 4/3/98 PST, Gordon, Charles wrote:
>>Given that IPP is the Internet Printing Protocol, do we really
need to
>>support anything else besides TCP/IP? Is the IPP working
group even
>>mandated to worry about non TCP/IP environments?
>>
>> --- Charles
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: don@lexmark.com [SMTP:don@lexmark.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 4:22 PM
>>> To: rturner@sharplabs.com
>>> Cc: Rdebry@Us.Ibm.Com; Ipp@pwg.org
>>> Subject: RE: IPP> Host to device
>>>
>>>
>>> Randy:
>>>
>>> My biggest concern is that your proposal is TCP/IP only. Is
does not
>>> solve
>>> the problem for printers connected to servers via:
>>>
>>> - Parallel
>>> - Serial
>>> - USB
>>> - 1394
>>> - IPX/SPX
>>> - AppleTalk
>>> - DLC/LLC
>>> - etc., etc., etc.
>>>
>>> If I'm going to use TCP/IP then I might as well go ahead
with the HTTP
>>> based implementation. You don't provide more status and
control or
>>> anything else that really buys me anything other than a
slightly
>>> lighter
>>> transport. It's just not work the trouble for the return on
>>> investment.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>> **********************************************
>>> * 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) *
>>> **********************************************
>>>
>>
>>
>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

>----------------------------------------------------------------------<