Subject: Re: IPP> Re: ADM - IPP Charter and Slot in Memphis -Reply

From: Scott Isaacson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 09:46:47 -0700

I agree with what Don has suggested, and I would like to add one more
item:

There has not been a single active participant (over 40 people from  20+
companies) that has suggested a formal need for this "standard"
mapping. 

Unanimously, participants have agreed that there will be mapping code
from IPP to any or all of these existing implementations (LPR in its MANY
forms included), but that there is no need to standardize on it.  As we
can see from some of the participants, some will implment this IPP to LPR
mapping code and then make it available as reference source code for
any other vendor that might want to take it and tweak it for their
implementation.   This will happen, but it does not need to be a standard.

In other words, the federal government is imposing an unworkable
mandate on the states, each of which knows best how to solve this
problem without the "helpful" input from the feds.

However, it would be important for someone who is highly motivated
(because of existing business in legacy LPR systems) to take a look at
the IPP  model and subsequent protocol to insure that this LPR mapping
can be done.  If there are any real concerns,  voice them now.   I have
not heard major issues to date.

Scott

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 03:23:41 -0500

> companies) that has suggested a formal need for this "standard"

The IETF has a somewhat different composition than the current IPP group.
Different sets of people will naturally identify different needs.
For those who attended the IPP BOF at the last IETF, the IETF's 
concern over inventing a new protocol instead of adapting lpr should not
be surprising.  Several IETF participants have expressed similar concerns
to me personally.    I've tried to convince those people that lpr is 
basically broken and non-extensible, but some of them are still concerned
about compatibility.  Hence the charter requirement.

> implementation.   This will happen, but it does not need to be a standard.

lpr is of course not the only protocol for which compatibility is
desirable, nor is it necessarily the most important one overall;
it's just one particular need that several IETF people identified.  
The mapping need not be a standard (it can be an Informational document) 
but it does need to be documented.  Documents describing mappings 
to other protocols would also be welcome, and it would be wonderful 
to have example source code to accompany that documentation.

> problem without the "helpful" input from the feds.

I assume you meant this as analogy rather than an accusation.

I think it's fair to say that there is suspicion both on the
part of some members of IPP to IETF, and of some members of IETF
toward IPP.  The best way to address this problem is to get the
two groups working together.

> not heard major issues to date.

Nor do I think there are any.  It's just a matter of documenting
how it is done.

Keith

---

From: Patrick Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 12:08:35 -0800 (PST)

# I think it's fair to say that there is suspicion both on the
# part of some members of IPP to IETF, and of some members of IETF
# toward IPP.  The best way to address this problem is to get the
# two groups working together.
# 
# > However, it would be important for someone who is highly motivated
# > (because of existing business in legacy LPR systems) to take a look at
# > the IPP  model and subsequent protocol to insure that this LPR mapping
# > can be done.  If there are any real concerns,  voice them now.   I have
# > not heard major issues to date.
# 

I am one of those people.  I am the author of several LPR based print
spooling systems and the reason I got involved was to make sure that
RFC1179 is obsoleted by something rational.

I have some concerns - most of which revolve around PRESENTATION
of the standard and making things uniform and understandable to
the IETF audience.  In addition,  I think that the scope of the IPP
protocol discussions and model is too limited - better to do it
all at once rather than to have SNMP/SNMP II all over again.

# Nor do I think there are any.  It's just a matter of documenting
# how it is done.
# 
# Keith

Patrick Powell

---

From: Scott Isaacson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:48:08 -0700

Bill,

If I can summarize: you had two interpretations of the proposal from
Keith.  The first,  forced comliance of IPP to LPR or vice versa, you
reasoned was not appropriate.  The second, a "reasonable migration
path" giving helps and hints of how to map from one to the other, you
concluded would be "appropriate in the charter". 

>From all the emails that I have seen and some additional input from Keith, I
personally can conclude that it is definitely the later (and not the former)
which should be included in scope for the IPP charter.  It even sounds
like we have some volunteers now.

Thanks for the clarification.

Scott