IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Host to device

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Host to device

RE: IPP> Host to device

Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Sat, 4 Apr 1998 02:18:51 -0500

I disagree that it would be odd to see IPP over other transports. Why w=
ould
that be any less desirable than, say, TIPSI over USB? What is odd, to m=
e, is
for a standards group to invent one protocol and not deploy it (TIPSI),=
then,
later, invent another (IPP) and try to limit (rather than enhance) it, =
trying
to substitute the (now) older solution in it's place. Roger's observati=
on is
that, what makes TIPSI transport independent, is the packet structure, =
with
continuation flag, ACKs and the ability to interleave commands (like CA=
NCEL),
not the command/query definitions themselves (which have been supersede=
d by
IPP). Randy is evolving a specific mapping to TCP/IP which addresses th=
ese
issues as well (chunking, separate channel...). I don't see what is wro=
ng with
either approach.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

ipp-owner@pwg.org on 04/03/98 03:25:05 PM
Please respond to ipp-owner@pwg.org
To: rturner@sharplabs.com, don@lexmark.com, CGordon@wal.osicom.com
cc: Ipp@pwg.org, Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM@ibmus
Subject: RE: IPP> Host to device

Good point - it would look very odd to have IPP for USB.

Also odd would be to have two IPP implmentations on TCP/IP - HTTP and d=
irect
TCP/IP.

In retrospect the correct thing to have done was to produce a mapping o=
f
TIP/SI onto HTTP. Ie. HTTP is just another transport layer.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon, Charles [SMTP:CGordon@wal.osicom.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 1:57 PM
> To: 'don@lexmark.com'; rturner@sharplabs.com
> Cc: Rdebry@Us.Ibm.Com; Ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: IPP> Host to device
>
> Given that IPP is the Internet Printing Protocol, do we really need t=
o
> 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 n=
ot
> > 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 H=
TTP
> > 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) *
> > **********************************************
> >

=