Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - Base printer implementation requirements

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 16:10:24 -0400 (EDT)

Bill,

>      Although I agree that I see what appear to be contradictory comments 
>      about the base system (high end printer vs printer preceded by server 
>      vs hardware not able to implement), and I see some unlikely statements 
>      ($150 printers are still rated as personal printers, not workgroup 
>      printers), Jay's base premise frightens me. 

You raise an interesting question about terminology here.  I quickly
agree with you that $150 printers would be characterized as "personal"
printers and not "workgroup" printers.  However, Tom repeatedly states
the IPP's intention to support "desktop" printers.

So, exactly how do we define a "desktop" printer?  Hopefully this is
not a silly question, given that serious design decisions are being
made based on the need to support "desktop" printers.

Should only "network printers" be considered when defining implementation
constraints?  (And yes, what constitutes a "network printer", etc?)

>      The notion that IPP is  *just* for internet printing (as distinguished 
>      from intranet or intra-enterprise printing) is a very frightening one. 
>      Granted that internet printing has a certain pizzas right now, I would 
>      still expect 90% of the printing will be within a company. I strongly 
>      question whether there is any rational in developing a protocol just 
>      for internet printing. Indeed, since one of the intentions is to 
>      provide a substantial improvement over LPR, I would certainly expect 
>      that intra-enterprise printing is the major target.

I sure hope so, too.  What I see happening though (IMHO) is that the IPP
group is assuming that an HTTP-based approach should work equally well
in an *intranet* environment as an *internet* environment.  This is why
I said "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

Solving the intranet problem is just as big a need (no, bigger?) than
solving the Pay-for-Print and "fax replacement" requirements noted in
the IPP requirements doc.

	...jay

---

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 14:01:27 PDT

I have inserted a few comments below, preceded by CBM>, otherwise this
starts becoming totally unreadable.

Carl-Uno

>constraints?  (And yes, what constitutes a "network printer", etc?)

CBM> I think using these terms in the context of model and protocol are 
CBM> meaningless, but they give some general idea in the requirements doc.
CBM> The first set of IPP implementations will most certainly be of type
CBM> print server that can front for any type of printer, including a $150
CBM> printer which is hooked up directly to the print server machine.
CBM> The next stage is more likely to include IPP servers embedded in
CBM> print devices connected to the network, and whether that networked 
CBM> printer fits on a desktop or not seems really irrelevant.

>the IPP requirements doc.

CBM> I do not think that anybody is neglecting the intranet type scenarios.
CBM> Actually when it comes to security, we need to make rather explicit
CBM> the differences between the intranet and the Internet cases.

>	...jay

Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: [email-masked]