Subject: Proposed IETF Charter, Version 2

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:02:41 PST

Hi all,

thanks for the comments submitted by Bill, Don and Jay. This new version has
taken their proposed changes into account, except for the following two
points that I did not think were supported by the whole group:

1) Bill suggested that the wording about "authentication etc." was too
strong. I believe that the security aspects cannot be underrated when we aim
for an Internet standard (as opposed to intranets, where security behind
firewalls may be more relaxed). I changed "shall" to "will" if that is
considered an improvement? Comments?

2) Jay was uncertain about keeping the formulation about "extensibility
paths". We do have this in DPA, and I believe that this is a very important
design feature that we need to carry over into the IPP version. Is there
really disagreement about this point?

What still needs to be done is to add references to the Internet-Draft(s) at
the end of the document.

As this is a short document, I skipped trying to make line numbers and
revision marks.

I hope that we can reach agreement on the text tomorrow...

Carl-Uno

---
(DRAFT 2: 11/19/96)

IETF Internet Printing Protocol (ipp) WG

Chair(s):
	Carl-Uno Manros    <[email-masked]>
 
Applications Area Director(s): 
	Keith Moore  	   <[email-masked]>
	Harald Alvestrand  <[email-masked]>
 
Area Advisor:
        TBD

Mailing List Information: 
	General Discussion: <[email-masked]>
	To Subscribe:	    <[email-masked]>
	Archive:	    ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/

Editor:
	Scott Isaacson      <[email-masked]>
 
Description of Working Group:

Internet printing involves using Internet technologies and services 
to find networked resources, such as printers, and then submit jobs
using those resources.  

The goal of this working group is to define a new application level 
distributed printing protocol as well as defining naming and service 
registration attributes for printing.  The protocol shall support a 
global, distributed environment where print service users (clients, 
applications, drivers, etc.) cooperate and interact with print service 
providers (servers, printers, gateways, etc.). 

The working group will leverage existing (and emerging) technologies 
for: authentication, authorization, privacy, and commercial transactions. 
For location of printers, the working group will leverage existing 
standards for directories.

The working group shall strive to coordinate its activities with other 
printing-related standards bodies.

The new job submission protocol should not strive to preclude any 
types of output devices (e.g., fax, printer, gateway).  Also, the 
working group shall define extensibility paths so that similar extensions 
will interoperate and proprietary, dissimilar extensions will never 
conflict.

The Internet Printing Protocol will be designed to make use of Web 
browsers, HTTP, and LDAP for directory look-ups. 

The Internet Printing Protocol is intended to replace RFC 1179 'Line 
Printer Daemon Protocol'.  LPR/LPD was designed a long time ago with 
line printers in mind. It does not fit with current page oriented 
printing technologies.

Deliverables and Milestones:

Done
	Mailing list and archive

November 1996 - Submit first set of Internet-Drafts
	
December 1996 - BOF in IETF meeting in San Jose, CA, USA

March 1997 - Submit Internet-Drafts

April 1997 - Review of specification in IETF meeting in Memphis, TN, USA

May 1997 - At least 2 implemented prototypes

May 1997 - Submit document(s) to the IESG for Proposed Standard

Internet-Drafts:

   No Current Internet-Drafts
Carl-Uno Manros
Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd.
M/S: ESAE-231
El Segundo, CA 90245, USA
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Bill Wagner)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:08:40 -0500

Carl-Uno,
     
     I think it is looking pretty good. Two minor "wordsmith" items:
     
     In the second paragraph:
     
     "The goal of this working group is to define a new application level 
     distributed printing protocol as well as defining naming and service 
     registration attributes for printing. "
     
     I suggest making the structure more parallel:
     
     "The goal of this working group is to define a new application level 
     distributed printing protocol and to define naming and service 
     registration attributes for printing." 
     
     In the fifth paragraph, 
     "The new job submission protocol should not strive to preclude any 
     types of output devices (e.g., fax, printer, gateway)." 
     
     I suggest that what was intended was:
     "The working group will strive to ensure that the new job submission 
     protocol does not preclude the use of any type of output device  
     (e.g., fax, printer, gateway)."
     
     Regards,
     
     Bill Wagner, DPI