Subject: RE: IPP> Host to device

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 16:22:22 -0500

Randy:

My biggest concern is that your proposal is TCP/IP only.  Is does not solve
the problem for printers connected to servers via:

- Parallel
- Serial
- USB
- 1394
- IPX/SPX
- AppleTalk
- DLC/LLC
- etc., etc., etc.

If I'm going to use TCP/IP then I might as well go ahead with the HTTP
based implementation.  You don't provide more status and control or
anything else that really buys me anything other than a slightly lighter
transport.  It's just not work the trouble for the return on investment.

Don

**********************************************
* 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: "Gordon, Charles" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 16:56:52 -0500

Given that IPP is the Internet Printing Protocol, do we really need to
support anything else besides TCP/IP?  Is the IPP working group even
mandated to worry about non TCP/IP environments?

					--- Charles

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	[email-masked] [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Friday, April 03, 1998 4:22 PM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Cc:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject:	RE: IPP> Host to device
> 
> 
> Randy:
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 17:03:18 -0500

Charles:

TCP/IP is the inbound transport from the client to the server.  We are
talking here about the server to the printer.  That connection could be
anything.  This discussion is certainly appropriate for the Printer Working
Group chartered IPP group.  While the IETF can pretend that only TCP/IP is
used for communication, the reality is that most printers are not connected
to computers using TCP/IP.

To:   Don Wright@Lexmark, [email-masked]
cc:   [email-masked],
      [email-masked]
bcc:
Subject:  RE: IPP> Host to device

---

From: Paul Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 14:21:34 -0800

Good point - it would look very odd to have IPP for USB. 

Also odd would be to have two IPP implmentations on TCP/IP - HTTP and direct
TCP/IP.

In retrospect the correct thing to have done was to produce a mapping of
TIP/SI onto HTTP. Ie. HTTP is just another transport layer. 

> From:	Gordon, Charles [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Friday, April 03, 1998 1:57 PM
> To:	[email-masked]'; [email-masked]

---

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 02:18:51 -0500

I disagree that it would be odd to see IPP over other transports. Why would
that be any less desirable than, say, TIPSI over USB? What is odd, to me, is
for a standards group to invent one protocol and not deploy it (TIPSI), then,
later, invent another (IPP) and try to limit (rather than enhance) it, trying
to substitute the (now) older solution in it's place. Roger's observation is
that, what makes TIPSI transport independent, is the packet structure, with
continuation flag, ACKs and the ability to interleave commands (like CANCEL),
not the command/query definitions themselves (which have been superseded by
IPP). Randy is evolving a specific mapping to TCP/IP which addresses these
issues as well (chunking, separate channel...). I don't see what is wrong with
either approach.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

[email-masked] on 04/03/98 03:25:05 PM
Please respond to [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
cc: [email-masked], Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM@ibmus
Subject: RE: IPP> Host to device

---

From: Paul Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 10:43:03 -0700

I meant 'odd' in a very specific way. IPP is INTERNET Printng Protocol - USB
is not normally considered as an Internet transport. The  Internet is, after
all, a TCP/IP network.

I do not see anybody trying to LIMIT IPP. All I see are people (including
me) pointing out its limitiations - this is not the same thing at all. 

> From:	Harry Lewis [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Friday, April 03, 1998 11:19 PM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Cc:	Roger K Debry; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]

---

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 17:31:06 -0400

In reverse order...

>me) pointing out its limitations - this is not the same thing at all.

Agree. Poor phrasing on my part. Your list of limitations has formed an
especially good basis for discussing enhancements.

>I meant 'odd' in a very specific way. IPP is INTERNET Printing Protocol - USB

Maybe I've allowed myself to become too hopeful regarding our IPP model