Subject: IPP> Re: Suggested workplan - host to device protocol

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:23:46 -0500

Roger deBry said:

>Assertions:
>
>(1) IPP, as it is currently defined, is the correct protocol
>      for client to server, across the Internet.
>
>(2) IPP, as it is currently defined, is the correct protocol
>      for client to server, across an Intranet
>
>(3) IPP, as it is currently defined, is the correct protocol
>      between a server and a printer which contains an
>      imbedded server.

I can easily agree with Roger on #1 and #2.  I think where
the problem lies is with #3.  I am not sure how broad the
definition of "imbedded server" is?  Does that mean imbedded
IPP server or any server?  All of my network printers today
have available what we call an Internal Print Server which
supports a wide range of protocols.  Is that what you mean
Roger?  I don't think so.  I think the definition needs to
be "imbedded, spooling print server."  And even then, I think
we have lost a huge amount of control and status information
that is available from TIPSI or even SNMP.  Maybe we need
to define some kind of passthrough for IPP that allows
the control and status information for the down and dirty
hardware to be retrieved and set through IPP??

Comments?

**********************************************
* Don Wright                 [email-masked] *
* Product Manager, Strategic Alliances       *
* Lexmark International                      *
* 740 New Circle Rd                          *
* Lexington, Ky 40550                        *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax)    *
**********************************************

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:12:47 -0500

I agree with Don.

Moreover, I think its time we in the PWG started to talk about
varying *classes* of "printers" (ie, embedded network hosts
that image jobs on media).

All too many times people want to lump all kinds of printers
into one *giant* class, expecting the full range of capabilities
to be POSSIBLE in all types of printers...including the $195
varieties sold at Wal-Mart et al.  (This is where enterprise-
level printing software vendors such as Jim Walker of DAZEL
get serious heartburn.)

IMHO, those printer vendors wanting to ship a "be-all, end-all"
product in the marketplace should do just that, if they desire.
However, at the same time, those vendors should *not* be saying
things like "We can standardize on that function because it
would require too much RAM/ROM in the printer, thereby increasing
the product's price beyond its targeted price point."

Low-level host-to-device (aka "server-to-printer") protocols
such as TIPSI and CPAP allow even very low cost printers to provide
high degrees of capabilities without having to significantly increase
the internal software footprint.

Let's "Stop the Insanity!" with respect to "One Size Fits All".

	...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: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:22:45 -0500

Oops...  This clause in my last posting had a typo that might
confuse folks:

> ...those vendors should *not* be saying

Of course, I *meant* to say:

...those vendors should *not* be saying things like "We can't..."
                                                        ^^^^^
Sorry about that.

	...jay