IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standa

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standa

RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?

From: Zehler, Peter (PZehler@crt.xerox.com)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 12:35:54 EDT

  • Next message: don@lexmark.com: "RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?"


    I though IPP 1.2 would have additional conformance requirements. Now that
    we have got some mileage on the protocol we can mandate the features that
    are useful across the industry. We can also fix some holes that we have
    discovered over time. My assumption would be that the document object would
    be one of the items that would be mandated in IPP 1.2. I have not seen
    anything yet that would require a major version change.

    I have already stated that interoperability would be a key objective. I
    would hope that Apple, Linux and CUPS would participate in an IPP v1.2


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Dennis Carney [mailto:dcarney@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 11:49 AM
    To: ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?

    Hmmm, seems like I might be the only person not entirely in favor. I'm
    just not sure about spinning a new version just to collect specs together.

    Would 1.2 have any additional conformance requirements? Are we going to
    make OPTIONAL extensions REQUIRED now?

    If there are no additional conformance requirements, then a printer that
    claims to be IPP/1.1 compliant will be automatically IPP/1.2 compliant,
    right? In fact, a printer that *was* claiming "IPP/1.1 and PWG 5100.3
    compliant" would now simply be "IPP/1.2 compliant".

    I guess I'm looking for a better justification for IPP/1.2. New
    conformance requirements to create a "better" protocol would be a good
    justification, I believe--are people thinking in this direction (for
    example, should we make the Document object REQUIRED in 1.2?)? Causing
    companies to implement extensions so that interop can be performed is
    another good justification (if we believe that creating a 1.2 will have the
    effect of creating additional implementations).

    In short, what is our goal for IPP/1.2?

    Dennis Carney
    IBM Printing Systems


                          "Zehler, Peter"

                          <PZehler@crt.xero To: "'McDonald, Ira'"
    <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "'ipp@pwg.org'" <ipp@pwg.org>
                          x.com> cc:

                          Sent by: Subject: RE: IPP> Should we
    do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?



                          04/28/03 05:46 AM




    I think an IPP v1.2 would be a good idea. It would give us an opportunity
    to collect all the extensions into a single document. (A one stop shop for
    IPP as opposed to about 1500 pages spread over some 28 documents) This
    would also give us an opportunity for another Bake-Off. We have done a
    good job on interoperability on the core specs. I am unsure about the
    interoperability of the various extensions. I know some problems already


    -----Original Message-----
    From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
    Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 5:51 PM
    To: 'ipp@pwg.org'
    Subject: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?


    Dennis Carney (IBM) recently observed that the IPP Document Object
    spec was starting to sound a lot like "IPP/1.2". Below, Michael
    Sweet (CUPS) again raises the possibility of an "IPP.1.2".

    Is this a worthwhile idea?

    _If_ there was at least one other editor who was MS Word literate
    (Dennis Carney, Tom Hastings, ...?), I would volunteer to collaborate
    on writing an "IPP/1.2" spec with new significantly higher REQUIRED
    features that consisted entirely (or almost entirely) of pointers to
    the definitions of operations, objects, and attributes in the over 30
    documents (IETF and IEEE/ISTO) that currently specify parts of IPP.

    Any takers?

    - Ira McDonald
      High North Inc

    ----- Excerpt ------

    Michael Sweet wrote:
    >Hastings, Tom N wrote:
    >> ...
    >> 1. DEPRECATE the way a client can close a Job by supplying an empty
    >Hmm, knowing that people are busy, etc., what are the chances that
    >we do an IPP/1.2 specification based upon the current 1.1 docs +
    >the common extensions (collections, notifications?, job-and-printer
    >ops, plus the document object stuff)?
    >This is another extension which is pointing to an IPP/1.2 version
    >bump - deprecating operations is something that should be reserved
    >for new versions, since otherwise you might not have at least 1
    >version to provide a transition period...

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 12:36:47 EDT