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

From: Dave Whitehead <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 09:32:02 -0400

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                                               
             <[email-masked]                                             
             >                                                          To 
                                       Ira McDonald                        
             07/31/2008 05:07          <[email-masked]>           
             PM                                                         cc 
                                       Dave Whitehead <[email-masked]>, 
                                       [email-masked], "Farrell, Lee"         
                                       <[email-masked]>,        
                                       [email-masked],                  
                                       [email-masked]                  
                                                                   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