Subject: IPP> Microsoft Presentation

From: Roger K Debry <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:20:35 -0500

Well, many of you will not see this as you are sleeping in somplace in Maui.
However, I want to respond to the Microsoft presentation with the IBM point
of view so that it is clear going in to the meeting this afternoon.

The Microsoft proposal addresses two issues:

1) Use a new method instead of POST

2) Use XML instead of the current protocol

However, the major issue here is not, I believe, a technical one.
It is a matter of timing, of process, and principle. Let me explain.

A year ago as we started down the path of developing a new
standard for printing on the Internet, we agreed to pursue that
path which would allow us to deploy the standard as quickly as
possible. This meant, for one thing, basing our work on existing,
well established protocols, and products. We stopped dead in our
tracks last spring to deal with Microsoft's SWP proposal and after
much soul searching and negotiation, we reached a compromise
that accomodated Microsoft's views and got the standard back on
track.  The Post vs. new method debate was not a Microsoft issue
until just a few weeks ago. Nevertheless, We have argued the firewall
and POST vs. new method over and over again, and our decisions
to go with POST reviewed at every IETF meeting.

Now here we are a month after the last call on the standard, with
Microsoft once again asking us to stop and reset the standard.
It is our belief that if we agree to this change, it will be at least 4-6
months before we are ready to do a last call again. This is evidenced
by the many issues raised in Bob Herriot's fine analysis of mapping
IPP to XML.  This has some serious implications ...

o Much of the prototyping work will have to be reset
o The standard will be at least six months late in being approved
o We lose credibility with the consultants and analysists we've talked to
o We lose credibility with the IETF
o We bind ourselves (I believe) too closely to one company's
   strategy and their view of how Browsers and the web play in the desktop.
o We open the door for consideration of the NEXT cool technology to
    come along six months from now, or Microsoft's next O/S change.

We can debate the technical issues ad nauseum (and probably will),
but I believe we need to take a stand on what we have done and say
"It is good enough".

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

---

From: "Wagner, William" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:11:56 -0500

Gentlemen,

I fully agree with Roger Debry's observations. The IPP started out with
a very aggressive schedule, but did sacrifice that schedule to ensure
that the approach was technically sound and that the concerns of all
participants were heard. Indeed, the representatives of Microsoft were
concerned with the delays that such considerations  imposed. 

There is no compelling information in the new Microsoft presentation
that suggests that the working group has not properly addressed its
objectives and charter or that what has been developed will not work
effectively. I would suggest that, looking from an embedded server point
of view, which I believe will be the primary implementation mode, the
proposed changes would  complicate the implementation.

I would also observe increasing apprehension that the IPP will get
bogged down in standardsitis.  I see the re-emergence of alternate
internet printing schemes. Indeed, I now am starting to regret that I
discouraged several such schemes. I think that this challenge to the IPP
may delay the deployment to such an extent that it will be fatal.

Enjoy Hawaii !
W. A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
OSICOM/DPI

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Roger K Debry [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Wednesday, January 28, 1998 10:21 AM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	IPP> Microsoft Presentation
> 
>

---

From: Josh Cohen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:06:09 -0800

I agree that the issues before us are more "process" than
technical.

> From: Roger K Debry [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 7:21 AM
> To: [email-masked]
Granted, there is some work involved, however, we can
cut out the more complicated binary parsing work and
depend on XML parsing to simplify things.
Keep in mind that as a guide, we are offering code.

> o The standard will be at least six months late in being approved
Maybe

> o We lose credibility with the IETF
I totally disagree.  You will gain credibility with the IETF.
Your area director and other members of the community presently
feel that the pwg has proceeded on its own and disregarded
input given in the past.  While we may be guilty of not
pressing hard enough in the past, like everyone, we have
limited resources.

>    strategy and their view of how Browsers and the web play 
We have not decided to make this "last minute" objection to
make IPP fit into "our" model of the universe, as you imply.
It was our standards group, (myself, yaron and others)
who have pressed our printing group to reconsider.
If there is anyone who is in danger of slipping a product
or being pressured by business ship reasons to avoid
a last minute change, it is us.

>     come along six months from now, or Microsoft's next O/S change.
Again, this has nothing to do with Microsoft's next OS world
or the "next big thing".  We are pursuing this because we really
beleive it is the right thing to do.

XML offers us a uniform way to model data in a portable manner.
This functionality is something IPP needs.  In the past, XML
did not have the momentum it does now, and the IPP group rightfully
decided to build its own way of doing that.  I assert that
the world around us has changed.  While pwg invented a wheel
to structure the data, the rest of the world really appears
to be adopting XML as a standard way to do this.
If we ignore that and say "well we already spent all this time
building our own wheel", I fear that the world will be 
searching for a "more standard" or more interoperable
(with other protocols) way of doing what IPP does.
The worst case isnt slipping a few months.  The worst
case is that IPP is obsoleted the day it is released.
That would truly make the work done on IPP a waste.

> but I believe we need to take a stand on what we have done and say
"No, It isnt" :)

---

From: Roger K Debry <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 08:47:09 -0500

>While we may be guilty of not pressing
>hard enough in the past, like everyone,
>we have limited resources.

I understand the resource issue, we all face the same
problem.  Unfortunately, you lose a lot of credibitlity with
the IPP working group when the only time you show up
at a meeting is to suggest a major change to the standard.