Subject: Re: IPP> Revised Charter Text for IPP

From: Raymond Lutz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 18:48:56 -0800

I wasn't proposing that they be combined. However, I contend that there is
significant overlap and that the split should be handled differently.
Perhaps this will occur as a result of natural consequences. The
communities are heavily overlapped, and in fact, I predict that the
scan-here/print-there paradigm will be the one used in the future for
internet "fax". On the other hand, interworking with the installed based of
fax devices is certainly a topic that is of little concern with the ipp group.

I think if we set up some "design rules" we can insure that the results of
the two groups will at least gracefully interoperate. If all interaction is
handled as MIME objects, then these should also be transportable via SMTP
and "IPP". Would the message disposition notice (MDN) appropriate for
details of the success of the print job submission via IPP? If so, then
this is easily ported to the SMTP world.

I agree with your point about narrow charters.
-Raymond

At 02:00 PM 12/27/96 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>I have strong objections to combining the printer and fax groups.
>They're not similar enough to warrant putting the two in one group.
>A single protocol that tried to solve the needs of both communities
>would likely be a huge mess.
>
>Besides, groups with narrow charters are far more likely to succeed.
>
>Keith
>
>

/***********************************************************************
** Raymond Lutz                             Voice: 619-447-3246
** Director R & D, Cognisys, Inc.           Fax:   619-447-6872 
** EC Chair, MFPA                           MFPA:  1-800-603-MFPA
** 1010 Old Chase Ave., Suite B             mailto:[email-masked]
** El Cajon (San Diego Co.), CA 92020 USA   http://www.cognisys.com           
**                                          http://www.mfpa.org
***********************************************************************/

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 22:30:14 -0500

> I wasn't proposing that they be combined. However, I contend that
> there is significant overlap and that the split should be handled
> differently.  Perhaps this will occur as a result of natural
> consequences. The communities are heavily overlapped, and in fact, I
> predict that the scan-here/print-there paradigm will be the one used
> in the future for internet "fax". On the other hand, interworking
> with the installed based of fax devices is certainly a topic that is
> of little concern with the ipp group.

I also suspect that supporting features of various printers (blank
media types/sizes, paper trays, single/double sided, folding,
stapling, collating, typefaces, etc) is of little concern to the fax
group.  Then there are the issues like security and billing, which --
as they involve completely different scenarios -- seem likely to have
very different solutions in the two groups.

It's fine with me if the two groups end up with similar solutions, but
I'm not willing to constrain either group to bend to the other's
wishes.  At this point, I'm far more inclined to let any
cross-fertilization happen informally.

> I think if we set up some "design rules" we can insure that the
> results of the two groups will at least gracefully interoperate. If
> all interaction is handled as MIME objects, then these should also
> be transportable via SMTP and "IPP". Would the message disposition
> notice (MDN) appropriate for details of the success of the print job
> submission via IPP?  If so, then this is easily ported to the SMTP
> world.

No, no, and no.  

While SMTP can be used as-is for sending faxes, it would require
extensive modifications to use it as a printing protocol.  If nothing
else, it has no facilities to find out the status of a print queue, to
list the characteristics of a printer, to list existing print jobs, to
remove or hold a print job, etc.  Also, while it might be quite useful
to be able to send a fax from an email user agent, it's not at all
clear that you want to use such an interface for what people normally
think of as "printing", or that you want your printer to have an email
address.

Likewise, while I think it would be good to use MIME content-types to
label types of media to be printed, I'm certainly not going to
constrain a printer group to use them to label things like queue
status, printer characteristics, or job completion.  Nor would I
expect most printers to accept and do reasonable things with MIME
multiparts.

MDNs would be a lousy format to indicate job completion.  Why should
we require print clients to parse MDNs when a one-line summary would
do?

Of course, if a network printer is willing to accept faxes over the
Internet, in addition to print jobs, I have no problem with that.  I'm
sure there will be many such 'dual use' products.  But the
requirements for the two are likely to be quite different, and I
suspect many users will want to be able to disable the fax receipt
function while retaining the capability to accept print jobs.

Keith

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 20:19:32 +0100

The fundamental difference that hasn't been mentioned so far between
the "print" paradigm and the "fax" paradigm is that in the "print"
paradigm, I generally want to create hard copy for my own use, on
equipment that I have some control over (usually controlled by the same
organization).

In the "fax" case, I usually want to move an image into equipment owned
by someone else, and they have the right to have a VERY heavy influence
on how it is handled.

Let's get away from discussing overlap in the abstract and back to
discussing the specific printer charter; I haven't yet seen a charter
that I'd be willing to approve, so at the moment there is nothing to
overlap with.

                Harald A