Subject: IPP> A free IPP test suite to be available!

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 10:40:29 -0500

This section of the just-posted IPP minutes caught my attention:

> GENOA
> -----
> 
> A presentation was made by Gary James from Genoa Technology about
> what Genoa is doing testing protocols.  A discussion followed about
> how Genoa would do an IPP test suite.  Genoa has looked at the IPP
> protocol and they are in the process of making a business decision
> to prioritize the various other projects they are investigating.
> They currently plan to do an IPP test suite and are trying to decide
> when to do it.  They expect a decision by early '98.

This is really good news, that Genoa is undertaking the effort to
deliver a FREE test suite for IPP.  It's not often that we find a
vendor so willing to provide such tools to an otherwise highly
competitive industry.

Thanks to Genoa for standing up at the IPP meeting and making this
important public announcement!  We look forward to seeing this new
FREE test suite.

	...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: Philip Thambidurai <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 08:34:49 -0500

I don't recall Genoa or anyone else saying this was FREE.

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 16:55:22 -0500

Thanks to the folks who replied (both publicly and privately)
to my original note on this topic.  For the record, I have
included essential parts of those responses to this message
for all to read.

Yeah, I didn't actually think the Genoa test suite would be FREE.

What bothers me is that the IPP group--a fully functioning working
group of the IETF--actually allowed a SINGLE vendor to stand up in
a face-to-face IPP meeting and talk business.  Not generic business,
mind you, but business FOR THAT VENDOR ONLY.

If the PWG desires to send out the equivalent of a "Request For
Quotation" or whatever, then fine.  Do that.  (And, btw, I think
that's a *great* idea for getting an IPP test suite going.)

However, to give very precious meeting time to a SINGLE VENDOR
is wholely and totally UNACCEPTABLE.  The fact that Genoa is
virtually ABSENT from ongoing PWG activities (of any kind) makes
the situation even more distasteful.

Even worse was having Genoa get up and pitch their (*potential*)
product, yet the topic was not on the agenda posted for the meeting.
I'll bet Chris Wellens of IWL would have liked to have had the chance
to make a similar pitch.  As a fellow host-based software vendor,
even I would have liked to have been involved in such an exploratory
meeting to better understand potential future business opportunities,
even if test suites are not our specific bread-and-butter business.

This kind of preferential treatment of a single vendor is NOT
something the PWG should be doing, particularly when that vendor
has never taken the time to involve itself with one or more of
the many ongoing PWG projects on the table (past or present).

	...jay

PS: For those unable to attend the IPP meeting, Bob Herriot provided
    some very useful information.  At least this will serve to level
    the playing field a bit.

Carl-Uno Manros wrote:
> 
> Jay,
> 
> Do not believe that the test suite is FREE. You can either have your tests
> done by Geneo in which case they will charge you for testing. If you want
> to buy the test suite you can count on forking out some $20,000.

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Jay:
> 
> You forgot to put a winking emoticon after the word "FREE" in your e-mail.

Robert Herriot wrote:
> 
> The financial details were omitted from the minutes.  Gary said that it
> typically costs Genoa about $200,000 to develop a test suite.  He never
> volunteered what he would charge pwg members, so I asked that question
> at the end.  He said that he didn't know but it would depend on their
> estimate of market size.  He gave examples of a cost of $7,500 for a
> test suite which had a large market versus $27,000 for another test
> suite they developed for a small market.
> 
> So, it won't be FREE to any of us, but I expect it will cost less that
> if we were each to develop our own test suites. Genoa has to cover
> its $200,000 cost somehow.

---

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:28:09 PST

Jay,

This was all my fault, I have to take the responsibility for what happened.

During my IPP presentation at the MFPA conference in San Diego, I ran into
people from Genoa who explained that they were seriously considering the
development of a "public" test suite for IPP. Apart from Rajesh Chawla, who
has already advertised his intentions on the IPP DL, this was the first
time I heard anybody express a serious interest in the subject, including
from you.

As the Genoa people are located close to LA, it was convenient for them to
join the meeting and give us a very short presentation and following short
discussion about the subject. As testing is going to be the next task for
IPP to tackle, I personally thought that we should take this opportunity to
hear their ideas.

The Genoa folks showed up as normal participants in the IPP meeting and
contributed to the conference costs like everybody else, which helped to
compensate for other people who had PINGed, but changed their plans last
minute.
FYI, the Genoa folks has actually made an appearance in an earlier testing
event on the Printer MIB. We can expect them to now become regular
participants in the IPP effort, and probably make more appearances than
people from some other companies with heavy influence but scarse
participation.

It might have been inappropriate to have this kind of discussion in a
formal IETF meeting (I have seen exception there too), but I expected that
the PWG was more flexibel. Nobody in the meeting expressed any objections
to this agenda point, which admittedly was advertised very late. It seemed
to me that everybody present in the IPP actually found the subject quite
interesting. As testing is going to be very important for IPP in the coming
year, I suggest that we might want to get further people and organizations
that do testing involved in our work.

You might be horrified to learn that Steve Zilles also handed out
documentation and said a few words about Adobe's Job Ticket's, which is now
public information on their web site.

Jay, my impression is that we are talking about sour grapes here, you are
just kicking yourself that you decided not to come to the meeting, in which
case I am sure that the discussion of this subject would have taken much
more time from the rest of our agenda.

Carl-Uno

>    some very useful information.  At least this will serve to level
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]

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 13:23:07 -0500

Just a few final words on this subject.

> public information on their web site.

Adobe (via Steve Zilles) was not explicitly trying to sell anyone
anything.  (At least not directly... ;-)  Btw, it would have been
great if the actual URL on this topic was listed in the minutes.

> more time from the rest of our agenda.

Well, you're just plain wrong on this one, Carl-Uno.  It's too bad
you feel this way.

Look, my point is this.  An IPP test suite is important to ALL
of us, whether we are a customer or a vendor of such a suite.
If the PWG desired to entertain discussion of this topic, then
it should have been formally listed in the agendas of one or
more PWG projects.  That way people like Chris Wellens and other
host-based software vendors could have had the chance to be at
the discussion to witness all the comments first-hand, rather
than get a real-view-mirror statement as documented in the minutes.

As most everyone knows by now, I'm all in favor of business-based
discussion in the PWG (as long as we don't step on the IETF's toes
in the process).  However, any and all such discussion should be
done on a level playing field, and not to the sole benefit of a
single vendor.  That's all.

	...jay

---

From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:55:30 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

Jay,

Had you been at the meeting you may have been even more vocal on this
subject.  The Genoa presentation was primarily a sales presentation and a
"Oh byte way, we are planning to do an IPP test suite.  But we don't know
when it will be available."

It would have been much more appropriate had they presented actual plans
for a test suite with, at least a mini-specification.

	Ron Bergman
	Dataproducts Corp.