SDP Mail Archive: SDP> RE: IPP> Charter eyeglasses

SDP> RE: IPP> Charter eyeglasses

Zehler, Peter (
Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:48:48 PDT

I also believe it would be a mistake to create yet another protocol =
printing. Some issues have been identified as shortcomings in the =
IPP mapping. Those issues should be addressed. There are, of course, =
number of ways to address them. We also have need of a richer printer =
as we move IPP forward to monitor and control a print device. We =
have a widely deployed model, the printer MIB.
I do not believe IPP is unreasonable to embed in a device. We =
keep the mandatory features focused on basic needs. This approach =
the model and protocol to scale. As of yet I have no trouble =
IPP in a lower end device.
Peter Zehler
Networked Products Business Unit
Voice: (716) 265-8755
FAX: (716) 265-8792=20
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 111-02J
Webster NY, 14580-9701

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Herriot [SMTP:robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 3:41 PM
To: Harry Lewis;
Subject: Re: IPP> Charter eyeglasses

I agree with Scott's interpretation. I think we chartered IPP to
communication among clients, servers and printers, not just between
users and print servers.

I am concerned that SDP is a big mistake and will create yet another

protocol, incompatible with all others including IPP. I think that
it is=20
reasonable to borrow ideas from other protocols, such as TIPSI, but
I think=20
we should continue along the IPP path we started.

If IPP is not a reasonable embedded solution, I wonder why we are
just now=20
hearing that, nearly a year after we decided on the encoding. If
IPP is=20
really such a bad embedded solution, perhaps we should fix it before
we all=20
commit to supporting it and end up with support for both IPP and

Bob Herriot

At 07:04 AM 4/16/98 , Harry Lewis wrote:
>Scott, I agree with your interpretation 100% and believe this is
the only
>interpretation. Otherwise, I think the overall charter would have
been way
>limiting - even if this is where we ended up for v1. I put the
emphasis there
>to show how I think some must be reading the charter and the
conclusions they
>must have made.
>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
> on 04/15/98 08:15:10 PM
>Please respond to
>To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@ibmus,,
>Subject: Re: IPP> Charter eyeglasses
>When I read:
>>>> Harry Lewis <> 04/15/98 04:24PM >>>
>>The Internet Print Protocol is a CLIENT-SERVER type protocol which
>>should allow the server side to be either a separate print server
>>a printer with embedded networking capabilities.
>I assume CLIENT/SERVER in the distributed systems architecture
>NOT in the literal CLIENT =3D PC and SERVER =3D file server/printer
>box sense.=A0 I see client/server meaning request/response rather
>remote methods, IIOP, RMI stuff.
>In other workds, I am not confused into thinking end-user to file
server only
>(not server
>to device) when I see the term "client/server"
>Good reading of the charter thought, very helpful.