Subject: IPP> Common concerns regarding the SWP proposal

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:47:13 -0400 (EDT)

After many private phone calls and email messages with several IPP
participants--including a 1.5 hour phone call with Evan Schuman
regarding his "Internet Printing Deal Unravels" article--it was
suggested that I be the sacrificial lamb and ask the $64K question:

   "So what's wrong with the SWP proposal from Microsoft and HP?"

The concerns I have heard from multiple IPP participants include the
following (in no particular order):

  1. Does not support multiple documents

  2. Does not support Print-by-Reference

  3. Does not support job status queries

  4. Does not support job cancellation by the requesting user

  5. Uses binary-encoded data for simple information normally encoded
     in text for HTTP-related transactions

There may be more concerns floating around, but these appear to be the
Top 5 that consistently arise in conversations.

We need to resolve the issue of whether:

  - The SWP proposal should represent THE final IPP specification, or

  - The SWP proposal represents "Level 1" conformance to an IPP spec
    having two conformance levels, or

  - The SWP proposal is inadequate and should be abandoned in favor
    of a single conformance level represented by the existing documents

The purpose of this message is to get these concerns out on the table
NOW so that we can resolve them as quickly as possible.  (Please don't
flame at me for this message...wait until I state my opinions... ;-)

There has been considerable traffic on the list regarding the concern
for the lack of Print-by-Reference.  Let's get discussion started on
the other concerns.

Incidentally, more than one participant made a statement to this effect:

  "If two conformance levels are specified--yet Microsoft only implements
   the low-end Level 1 spec--then it is pointless for us to work on a
   Level 2 implementation given current and past market dynamics.

   "Therefore, we should stop further IPP development and simply bless
    the SWP proposal and run with it, since it will be the only pervasive
    implementation in the marketplace, anyway."

Your comments to this statement are also encouraged, whether pro or con.

	...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   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------