IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2?

Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2?

From: Ira McDonald (blueroofmusic@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2008 - 15:31:25 EDT

  • Next message: Michael R Sweet: "Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2?"


    I agree with Dave Whitehead that required document formats (or any other
    new IPP requirements) belong in a separate standards-track PWG spec.

    Prototyping in the PWG Process does NOT require any interoperability testing
    at all. It's just a partial implementation (no minimum content) by a
    single vendor.

    Interoperability testing (AFTER approval of specs) is also part of the PWG
    Process but is NOT required to bring a document to Formal Approval vote
    as a Candidate Standard (unlike IETF and many other standards bodies).

    For IPP2x versions, a prototype could be one printer in a lab with a
    test client.

    I also agree that prototyping *some* required IPP document formats could
    be trivially accomplished.

    If we need new IPP projects, then so be it. But please let's not destroy the
    chance of IPP2x by introducing new content and breaking the concensus
    to proceed that was based on no new content.

    IPP/1.0 implementations DO NOT conform to IPP/1.1 and WILL NOT conform
    to IPP/2.0 - end of story.

    - Ira

    On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Dave Whitehead <david@lexmark.com> wrote:
    > If we can agree to the correct document format, prototyping could be a
    > matter of minutes.
    > dhw
    > Michael R Sweet
    > <msweet@apple.com
    > > To
    > Dave Whitehead <david@lexmark.com>
    > 07/31/2008 02:02 cc
    > PM Ira McDonald
    > <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>,
    > ipp@pwg.org, "Farrell, Lee"
    > <Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com>,
    > owner-ipp@pwg.org,
    > ptykodi@tykodi.com
    > Subject
    > Re: IPP> RFC: Add required
    > document-format values for IPP v2?
    > Dave Whitehead wrote:
    >> I think option 1 may be the way to proceed (if that's what we want to
    > do!)
    >> since it would then be just another document we reference in the IPPv2x
    >> document.
    > But won't option 1 (write a new standard, reference it in IPP/2.x)
    > still require prototyping, etc?
    > Plus, I don't see how we are getting around the prototype requirements
    > for 2.x - we *are* adding new content WRT version numbers, and that
    > requires prototyping to do any kind of testing/validation between
    > implementations.
    > --
    > ______________________________________________________________________
    > Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer

    Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
    Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
    Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
    email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com
     579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
     PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 31 2008 - 15:31:33 EDT