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: Dave Whitehead (david@lexmark.com)
Date: Fri Aug 01 2008 - 09:32:02 EDT

  • Next message: Ron.Bergman@ricoh-usa.com: "IPP> 8/4 Telecon Canceled"

    Well, I think we need to add at least one required document format. How
    that needs to proceed I'll leave up to others.

    How do the other members feel about this?

    Also, a PWG developed test suite for IPP validation! I like the idea. I
    remember talking about this on several occasions. If it's not on our to-do
    list, it should be.

    dhw

                                                                               
                 Michael R Sweet
                 <msweet@apple.com
    > To
                                           Ira McDonald
                 07/31/2008 05:07 <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
                 PM cc
                                           Dave Whitehead <david@lexmark.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?
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               

    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
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 01 2008 - 09:57:20 EDT