Subject: Re: IPP> Consensus on sending our drafts to the IESG

From: Roger K Debry <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:58:07 -0500

Not having been in Maui, I'd be interested in what
you believe the "many other" issues are.

Roger K deBry
Senior Technical Staff Member
Architecture and Technology
IBM Printing Systems
email: [email-masked]
phone: 1-303-924-4080

[email-masked] on 02/04/98 01:48:37 PM
Please respond to [email-masked] @ internet
To: [email-masked] @ internet
cc: [email-masked] @ internet
Subject: Re: IPP> Consensus on sending our drafts to the IESG

I am opposed to sending the current drafts of the Model & Semantics
document and Protocol Specification document to the IESG for last
call.  As I expressed in Maui, I believe that we have too many
issues with the current drafts, with the XML encoding issue only
being one of them.

I would also agree with Josh Cohen's comments... my recollection
was that we agreed that we had a "rough consensus", and that the
minority position on XML encoding would at least be noted as we
moved forward in the process.  In effect, we agreed to disagree,
with the discussion moving on to take place at the next higher level,
IESG last call.  I presume that the IESG can make the determination
if we have sufficient consensus to move this on to Proposed Standard.

...walker

--
Jim Walker <[email-masked]>
System Architect/DAZEL Wizard
DAZEL Corporation, Austin, TX

---

From: James Walker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 11:41:21 -0600

> you believe the "many other" issues are.

Sorry about the delay in the response...

There were several other issues that were discussed, some of which
I thought came up during the phone conference (alas, we all know
how well that technology worked :-).

At any rate here are some that I remember (not meant to be an
exhaustive list)...

o   Using a new HTTP method rather than overloading POST.
	Nuff said.

o   Concern over using HTTP at all... there was a rumor going
	around that the IESG was poised to reject the current
	IPP drafts because HTTP was being used as the protocol.
	In fact, part of the discussion was along the lines of
	"We know that this draft will get rejected anyways, so
	why don't we send it in, collect all of the comments at
	one time, and in the meantime we can think some more
	about XML".

	There also seemed to be some underriding current of
	uneasiness from some of the group regarding HTTP.
	This is just a subjective opinion of mine, but there
	were comments made like "now, if we had just used a
	simple socket-level protocol..."

o   IPP as an embedded printer protocol versus a print server
	protocol.  There was a lot of discussion about whether
	we are trying to accomplish too much by having one
	protocol for both the embedded printer and the print
	server.  For example, there is a natural tension between
	the space requirements that the embedded printer crowd
	(rightfully) defends, and the "elegance" and
	"extensibility" arguments that the print server crowd
	espouses.  I think that the XML discussion, as well as
	the original text versus binary protocol discussion from
	over a year ago, are valid examples of this tension.

o   IPP versus SNMP.  Along the same lines of some of the issues
	above were discussions about overlap between IPP and SNMP.
	There was at least one suggestion that IPP should perhaps
	just be a job submission (and cancellation?) protocol,
	and use the existing Printer and Job Monitoring MIBs for
	determining printer and job status.

	I was also concerned about comments from at least one
	representative from a large printer vendor that indicated
	very little interest in IPP as a whole.  "If we already
	have a way to get jobs in the printer (using, say, a
	simple bi-directional TCP connection) and a way to monitor
	those jobs, as well as the printer (SNMP), what good does
	IPP do for us?"

These are just some random recollections.  I do not mean to be
a gloom-and-doom'er, but I did want to document some of the
observations that I made from my seat.

...walker

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 14:53:19 -0500

I would like to go on record as sharing many (if not most) of
the views and comments Jim Walker has posted.

Given the current "culture" that has seemingly developed within
the IPP group, Jim should be commended on being so brave as to
suggest some of the views that some may describe as "nay-saying".

>         one time, and in the meantime we can think some more

While I had strongly proposed that the current drafts be submitted
as-is for IETF review, the fact is, I really don't like the
IPP protocol as it is currently defined.  (Wow, I said it.
Now I feel better... ;-)

One final note: whether IPP (as currently defined) is better or
worse than XML is really a useless discussion, IMHO.

Without Microsoft's aggressive support, any *pervasive* deployment
of an Internet-like printing protocol will likely fail within the
general domain.  If Microsoft balks at IPP v1.0 (and they surely
have made this comment, repeatedly!), then does anyone actually
believe they will deploy it?

I have longed for the day in which the Printer Industry as a whole
would stand up, band together, and produce something in concert
with the sum of the industry's players.  But, after waiting some
five years for this act to occur, I now find that this belief is
but a pipe dream.

Let's face it.  As long as the printer industry continues to gate
itself on the progress and initiative of Microsoft and HP, then
true innovation deployed on a global scale--in which the efforts
are conducted on an honestly "level playing field"--is likely
to NEVER happen, at least not in our lifetime.  (Of course, the
Department of Justice could change all of that... ;-)

I would like to publicly challenge Microsoft to put forth an
"Internet printing" proposal in which it can demonstrate true
openness for allowing the printer industry to participate in
it's development and deployment.

I, for one, have no problem in working within an environment
that has a "benevolent dictator".  After all, my company exists
to make products and profit from that effort.  Having a single
"Master" of a given effort is fine...so long as the Master is
open and honest with its "serfs".

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.

	...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--  JK Martin               |  Email:   [email-masked]          --
--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              --
--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              --
--  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:32:51 PST

Jim,

I don't think that any of the discussion points that you mention was new to
the group. 

We have been over that ground earlier and done our compromises and decisions. 
What happened in the meeting was that some people who have been in and out of 
the group raised them for discussion again. This does not mean that we have
to back track everything again.

Carl-Uno

At 09:41 AM 2/6/98 PST, James Walker wrote:
>o   Using a new
HTTP method rather than overloading POST.
>o   Concern over
using HTTP at all... there was a rumor going
>	were
comments made like "now, if we had just used a
>	we are
trying to accomplish too much by having one
>o   IPP versus
SNMP.  Along the same lines of some of the issues
>	have
a way to get jobs in the printer (using, say, a
>observations that I made from my
seat.
Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: [email-masked]