Subject: IPP> ADM - Re: JMP> LPD Job submission mapping

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 08:24:13 PST

More input on LPD from Patrick for our IESG requested explanation of why IPP
isn't just LPD extended.

Tom

>Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
>Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 07:24:10 PST
>From: Patrick Powell <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: JMP> LPD Job submission mapping
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Sender: [email-masked]
>
># The LPD protocol (aka RFC 1179) was NOT designed in a vacuum.  It was
># designed as part and parcel of the LPD daemon environment; that environment
># expected to FIRST spool all components of the submitted job (one or more
># data files, followed by one control file).  So, if you have the luxury
># of spooling all these components, then of course you can "reverse the order".
>
>Umm... you are going to hate this, but actually LPR came first, RFC1179
>was simply documenting LPR.  This is the same thing as RIP - RIP was
>first, then the RIP RFC came much later;  note that the RFC had some
>'do this as I say, not as I do' type things in it.
>
># In the category of "Fun Things to Know and Forget":  in our travels,
># only OS/2 2.1 sends the control file before the data file(s).  I
>wonder # how many LPD daemon systems mess up as a result of this...
>
>Ummm... I think you mean 'the broken vendor implementation of OS/2's
>print spooler'... There are 2nd party spoolers that do it in EITHER
>order, selectable by a run time switch.
>
>Note that the BSD based LPR implementations usually send control files
>first, the ones supplied with SYS III, send data files first,  and the
>SYS VR4 seem to do what they damn well please from release to release.
>In the PC world,  I have seen both - there is a drop in LPR client for
>most Windows 3.1 WINSOCK support packages,  and I have seen both data
>first or job first from different packages.
>
>I have also noted that some printer manufacturers,  when the implement
>LPD servers in their systems,  IGNORE the control file and use
>'autosense' methods to determine what the file contents are.
>I remember fighting with a XXX (censored) printer,  and trying to print
>a students 'malformed postscript' file so I could take it away and look
>at it and the printer kept locking up with 'postscript stack... '
>messages printed on it.
>
>Hey!  Why should we be surprised?  Given so much broken software out
>there, most people try to be as accomodating as possible in what they
>accept, and as restricted as possible in what they send.
>
>Patrick Powell
>
>#       ...jay
>
>