Subject: IPP> Re: Thanks Carl.

From: Patrick Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 15:03:45 -0800 (PST)

# I am prepared to put up concrete ideas, but not if HTTP has (against the
# spirit of the IETF rules) become a fait accompli amongst the "inner circle"
# because of expediency alone.  I am sure I am not the only one who wants a
# stingy, pithy easy to understand protocol.  This is my main problem; the
# indecent, unquestiong haste, like it is being shoved through before anyone
# notices and/or objects.  This must not be set in stone until it has been
# thoroughly examined and proven to be the best of a number of alternatives.
# In other words, steam roller tactics is not acceptable IETF conduct.
# 
# Assuming this matter is not closed, then I will get cracking and would like
# to see who else wants to work on the precise nuts and bolts of this ?
# Patrick ? Randy ?
# 
# geoff

I am open about this - as far as I can tell,  the general motivation for
HTTP is:

  'we put HTTP into the printer so we could sell our neat Web Browser
  management feature so lets save some implementation effort and use the
  same protocol.'

Of course,  I am probably slandering many printer manufacturers,
but speaking as one who has been there,  this is what I would have
done,  so I cannot point a finger...  Been there, done that...
and am as guilty as the next.

With me it was RPC,  and soon everything started looking like RPC
calls, etc.  Then DCE came in,  and soon it became so ugly that
other protocols started looking good.

I understand the problem,  and have sympathy with the implementors.

Patrick Powell