Re: IPP> Teleconference call minutes

From: Michael R Sweet (msweet@apple.com)
Date: Thu May 01 2008 - 16:57:50 EDT

  • Next message: Ira McDonald: "IPP> Change time/day of IPP WG meetings"

    Whittle, Craig wrote:
    > All:
    >
    > The minutes from this week's teleconference call can be found at:
    > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/ippv2-minutes/IPPv2-ConCall-Minutes-200805
    > 01.pdf
    >
    > The next teleconference is scheduled two weeks from today (same time).

    My apologies for not calling in - I had a minor emergency at home and
    had to babysit the repairman...

    In response to the meeting minutes:

    * Why would CUPS make all IPP optional operations in v2.0 “C or ‘not
       necessary’”? Could this be because they are “not necessary” for an
       IPPv1.1 compliant implementation.

    If we go with my proposal of the v2.0 being a simple workgroup
    printer, the optional operations are not necessary, and if you look
    at the mailing list archive much of the feedback from the participants
    at that time was to make these operations optional *because* they
    were not feasible to implement in a workgroup printer with limited
    memory and CPU, and generally no disk space.

    My proposal from Februrary has v2.0 including/supporting RFC 2910 and
    2911 and PWG 5100.1, 5100.2, and 5101.1. The only addition I might
    make to that list would be RFC 3382 (collection attributes) so that
    printers accept/understand collection attributes, even if they are
    ignored - right now many IPP/1.0 and IPP/1.1 printers will reject
    whole requests with collection attributes rather than returning a
    successful-ok-ignored-or-substituted-attributes status.

    If IPP 2.x is supposed to define one or more standard "profiles" of
    IPP support, then it makes sense to have a baseline 2.0 which has a
    minimum number of operations and attributes that need to be supported
    (good for that embedded/workgroup printer implementation) while
    ensuring that all of the basic attributes, tags, and values are
    defined and supported at that level (good for compatibility going
    forward.)

    -- 
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Michael R Sweet                        Senior Printing System Engineer
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 01 2008 - 16:57:58 EDT