IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification a

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification a

RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

From: Wagner,William (bwagner@digprod.com)
Date: Wed Jun 21 2000 - 14:18:41 EDT

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "IPP> Some current Internet FAX refs - RFCs and I-Ds"

    Paul's observations are correct. And ultimately, the manufacturer must
    provide the notification mechanism applicable to the enviroment(s) in which
    he wishes to sell his printers, regardless of what the RFC says.

    There are two stated reasons to mandate a notification mechanism:

    1. to be able to test inter-operability - but I suggest that companies will
    implement the mechanisms that they think will sell, regardless of what the
    draft says

    2. to be passed by the IESG - the point has already been made about Mail To
    being in a better position for that.

    William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
    Director of Technology
    Imaging Division
    NETsilicon, Inc.
    781-398-4588

    -----Original Message-----
    From: pmoore@peerless.com [mailto:pmoore@peerless.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 12:52 PM
    To: McDonald, Ira
    Cc: 'Zehler, Peter'; henrik.holst@i-data.com; ipp@pwg.org;
    peter.ultved@i-data.com
    Subject: RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

    The real problem is that IPP is aimed at several different problem spaces
    and
    advocates of different features are arguing from these different zones.

    Zone 1 - real network printers. I.e something that fills the same space as
    TIPSI, 9100 etc.
    Zone 2 - sophisticated intranet printers. Fills the same space as DPA
    Zone 3 - Sophisticated Internet printing - the 'kinkos.com' model
    Zone 4 - Simple Internet Printing - Internet Fax, sending newspapers to
    people's
    house, ...
    Zone 5 - sophisticated network spoolers (netware, CUPS, NT) fronting sets of
    printers (IPP or otherwise)

    A zone 1 advocate sees a completely different problem set from a zone 3
    person.
    Requiring z1 printers to send email seems like overkill - in many cases it
    will
    be a server that is spooling to the printer and the server will send out
    human
    readable notifications. Whereas to a z3 person the ONLY reasonable solution
    is
    email.

    The 'SDP' effort was started in recognition that z1 is very different from,
    say,
    z3 - but it has stalled (really never started), principally because we had
    never
    reached a significant parting of the ways - i.e. some feature where z1 and
    z3 (I
    use z1 and z3 becuase they are extremes) had opposing needs. It seems that
    notifications are such a feature.

    I dont propose a solution - but it seems useful to try to express the
    fundamental problem. I am not sure that the different zone camps are always
    aware of the mind-set of their 'opponents' in other camps.

    Secondly - do we need to mandate a method? Since the whole feature is
    optional
    any client will have to deal with the possibility that its favorite
    notification
    method is not available. We do have a way for a client to discover the
    supported
    methods - that seems to be enough. The group's job is therefore to define
    the
    'well known' set of methods. The TES task then becomes a matter of deciding
    which ones to test first based on other criteria than mandatory or not.

    My vote would be to test email first. The sinks exist, its clearly useful
    (at
    least in some zones) and the printer side implementation is relatively
    straightforward.

    Paul

    "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> on 06/21/2000 08:43:21 AM

    To: "'Zehler, Peter'" <Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com>,
    henrik.holst@i-data.com,
          ipp@pwg.org, peter.ultved@i-data.com
    cc: (bcc: Paul Moore/AUCO/US)

    Subject: RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

    Hi Peter and Henrik,

    As a reminder to all - this is an IETF chartered working
    group - such working groups do NOT make decisions in
    face-to-face meetings (even at IETF Plenary sessions).
    Decisions are made (and ratified) ONLY on the public
    email discussion list.

    The IPP mandatory notification method MUST be able to
    politically survive the IESG review process.

    While I think the INDP is a good effort technically, I
    strongly doubt that the IESG will like it as the mandatory
    IPP notification method. Unlike Email (SMTP) or MIBs (SNMP)
    it interworks with no existing infrastructure, which is bad.

    This mandatory notification method issue has also been
    discussed at some IPP WG weekly telecons (some I've attended).
    But this is also NOT the forum for final decisions.

    Lastly, Peter you jumped from port filtering by firewalls
    to MIME type filtering - but the latter requires that the
    firewall have an Application Layer Gateway (ALG) to figure
    out the protocol and THEN to find the MIME type inside the
    protocol envelope.

    Personally, I agree with Henrik about selecting email as
    the IPP mandatory notification method.

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox and Sharp
      High North Inc

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 5:25 AM
    To: henrik.holst@i-data.com; ipp@pwg.org; peter.ultved@i-data.com
    Subject: RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

    Henrik,

    From the May PWG/IPP meeting minutes:
    "4.6 Mandatory Notification Method?

    After further discussion about a possible mandatory notification

    method, the group agreed that the INDP Notification method should

    become mandatory."

    As for going through firewalls, the Bake-Off (hopefully) will test that
    specifically. Firewalls can be configured to allow specific traffic to
    pass. Some filter only on a port number and others examine content. I
    intend to have two firewall vendors at the Bake-Off with products that are
    able to filter at least on the port number. I hope at least one will also
    be able to examine the MIME type.

    Pete
                        Peter Zehler
                        XEROX
                        Xerox Architecture Center
                        Email: Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com
                        Voice: (716) 265-8755
                        FAX: (716) 265-8792
                        US Mail: Peter Zehler
                                Xerox Corp.
                                800 Phillips Rd.
                                M/S 139-05A
                                Webster NY, 14580-9701

    -----Original Message-----
    From: henrik.holst@i-data.com [mailto:henrik.holst@i-data.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 3:53 AM
    To: ipp@pwg.org; peter.ultved@i-data.com
    Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

    Well it was my understanding that we didn't agree on a mandatory method.
    And the INDP method
    won't go through a firewall, so if you are searching for a mandatory method
    I would say MAILTO.

    Henrik

    "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com>@pwg.org on 20-06-2000 17:43:51

    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org

    To: "IPP Discussion List (E-mail)" <IPP@pwg.org>
    cc:

    Subject: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

    All,

    I am working the content planning for the IPP Bake-Off. I want to be sure
    that there is PWG wide agreement on the notification issue.

    It is my understanding that INDP is the mandated IPP notification method.
    There were some minor updates that have been agreed to and we are awaiting
    the final version of the document for PWG last call. The minor changes are
    documented in the meeting minutes from May meeting of the PWG. This
    upcoming INDP document will be the document that the notification section
    of
    the Bake-Off will use as a base.

    Is this correct or did I misunderstand?

    Pete

                        Peter Zehler
                        XEROX
                        Xerox Architecture Center
                        Email: Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com
                        Voice: (716) 265-8755
                        FAX: (716) 265-8792
                        US Mail: Peter Zehler
                                Xerox Corp.
                                800 Phillips Rd.
                                M/S 139-05A
                                Webster NY, 14580-9701



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 21 2000 - 14:26:51 EDT