Subject: Re: IPP> Re: MOD - RE: Base printer implementation requireme

From: [email-masked] (Bill Wagner)
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 18:06:22 -0400

I suggest that, if IPP initially is restricted to (logical) printers 
     that can spool, it will be a lingering inherent defect that will be 
     very hard to reverse. I believe that this is the wrong approach and is 
     contrary to original intent of this project.
     
     Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI

---

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 18:33:51 -0400 (EDT)

Bill,

>      contrary to original intent of this project.

I understand your position completely.  We disagree, but that's ok.  ;-)

Regardless of whether we agree or not, I'm still quite concerned about
IPP solving the needs of the intranet (aka, Enterprise-level printing).

Hopefully no one will assume I'm taking the position that the only
problems to be solved by IPP are those occurring in the Enterprise.

There are other problems to be solved, to be sure, but please understand
that my company's vested interest is solving Enterprise-related problems,
so I'll continue to ask questions and raise issues on behalf of that
environment.  (But certainly not to the exclusion of other problems.)

Our experience has indicated that within the Enterprise, all network
printers must be front-ended by a spooling server; direct printing from
a client system to a network is highly discouraged, or even forbidden.

Does this experience match others' in the Enterprise?  I'd really like
to hear from other people on this question, either publicly or privately.

To those list members associated with educational institutions: do
educational institutions (particularly higher education facilities)
allow, encourage or otherwise accept direct client-to-printer job
submission over the network?  Or do you also demand routing jobs
through spooling systems?

Just so no one misunderstands, I think IPP as a front-end to a spooling
system is a great approach.  It's just the spooler-to-printer protocol
that concerns me.

	...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--  JK Martin               |  Email:   [email-masked]          --
--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              --
--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              --
--  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Babak Jahromi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 21:06:06 -0700

I agree. I just don't see how network printing without print servers
could scale. Unless we put the serves inside the printers, and charge
that much more, in which case we are forcing customers to pay for a
dedicated server they cannot use for other reasons, and cannot upgrade.

Babak

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	JK Martin [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Monday, May 05, 1997 3:34 PM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Cc:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	Re: IPP> Re: MOD - RE: Base printer implementation
> requireme
> 
> Bill,
>

---

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 11:15:40 -0400 (EDT)

Peter,

> Do you need a standard for this? Surely it is up to the spooler or
> spooler host OS manufacturer to negotiate with the the printer 
> manufacuter.

Our customers are demanding a unified protocol between a spooling system
and a network printer.  Similar to the concept of a "Universal Print Driver",
such a protocol would allow the same interface (or "filter", or "driver",
or whatever) to be used to communicate with potentially all kinds of
network printers.

By reducing the number of network techniques for getting the data from
the spooling server (or "client" in more general terms) to the printer,
then everyone wins.  The user wins by having fewer software components
to maintain, and the printer vendor wins by having to support fewer
protocol implementations in the printer.

	...jay

---

From: Scott Isaacson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 15:03:20 -0600

Babak writes:

>>> Babak Jahromi <[email-masked]> 05/05 10:06 PM >>>
> could scale. 

100% correct - it will not scale!   However, on the other hand, in a work
group environment with a very small number of users and a very small number
of users, why FORCE a server based solution (at extra hardware and technical
expertise cost) to the small work group (unless of course that means more
IntranetWare or NT servers which are part of our business right? ;-)  ...)

Not all printers will be full blown printer servers, but SOME are and will
be.   I believe the IPP model right now allows for an embedded solution but
does not force one nor does it preclude it.   Some desktop printers will
never be shared .. they will not have NICs, how can they ever embedd IPP. 
Some middle of the line work group printers which are only shared printers
may have embedded IPP solutions.

My 2cents.

Scott