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 - 19:55:54 EDT

  • Next message: Dave Whitehead: "Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2?"

    Hi Mike,

    I concede that we should add required document formats to IPP/2.0.

    I just re-read your note at the start of this thread and I realized
    that you said
    "MUST support *one* of the following [four] document formats", which works
    just fine, since document-format-supported is a REQUIRED attribute for all
    IPP Printers.

    I agree you've picked the right four formats for best simple printing

    As you say, this gives much more meat than PWG MSN names and (supposedly)
    correct protocol implementation to IPP/2.0 - the customer has a simple reason
    to look for the new conformance claim.

    - Ira

    On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Michael R Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:
    > Ira McDonald wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >> I agree with Dave Whitehead that required document formats (or any other
    >> new IPP requirements) belong in a separate standards-track PWG spec.
    > Again, we're already changing the ipp-versions-supported and the IPP
    > header to have 2.x version numbers. Doing a separate spec that is
    > literally 8 pages of boilerplate and 1 page of real content seems like
    > a lot of overhead for this!
    >> 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.
    > Keep in mind that CUPS already supports 3 out of the 4 formats I've
    > proposed. However, I'd argue that we need at least one printer
    > vendor to implement it as well...
    > Also, given the mess we have today, I think we really (really!) need
    > to do interop testing and come up with a standard test suite that
    > vendors can use to self-validate. (CUPS already has much of this in
    > its "make check" automated tests to validate its IPP/1.1 conformance)
    >> ...
    >> 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/2.x with no required document formats is no better than IPP/1.1.
    >> IPP/1.0 implementations DO NOT conform to IPP/1.1 and WILL NOT conform
    >> to IPP/2.0 - end of story.
    > True. The question is, who will upgrade to IPP/2.0 if there is no
    > compelling reason to do so?
    > --
    > ______________________________________________________________________
    > 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 - 19:56:01 EDT