Subject: IPP> PRO - Updated "Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols"

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 00:59:08 PDT

I've posted updated "Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols" in:

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        69396 Jul 14 07:54 lpd-ipp-rev-black.pdf
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        72163 Jul 14 07:53 lpd-ipp-rev-red.pdf
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        62976 Jul 14 07:51 lpd-ipp.doc
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        41862 Jul 14 07:52 lpd-ipp.pdf
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        22915 Jul 14 07:52 lpd-ipp.txt

The changes includes Jay Martin's comments, results of the IPP telecon, 7/9,
Norm Jacob's comments, and Bob Herriot's comments.  Norm and Bob have
included more detail for mapping in both directions.

Bob asks if it should be a standards track for LPD to IPP and IPP to LPD
gateways?

There are a few more issues listed in the document.

Norm and Bob indicate that they have more work to do, including mapping
error codes.

---

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 12:56:02 -0400 (EDT)

Tom,

I'm still reviewing the latest draft, but here are a few comments

> Bob asks if it should be a standards track for LPD to IPP and IPP to LPD

My opinion is "No", let's not start a standards track for such gateways.
IMHO, there is not enough value here to incur the administrative effort.
However, if others feel differently, then go for it.

> There are a few more issues listed in the document.

Given the nature of these issues, it might be best to extract them
and post the list to the DL, particularly since some of these "issues"
refer to IPP, rather than the mapping between LPD and IPP; for example,
the issue on line 268:

  ISSUE: is IPP defined at this point to abort a job whose connection
  is closed before the job hass been fully received.  If so, that is an
  alternate and simpler way to abort the job.

This sounds like an IPP-only kind of issue, and not a mapping issue, right?

Other comments:

Line 101:  "In LPD, this comment..." should be "In LPD, this command..."

Line 251:  "There are some major issues about setting the agent"
Say what?  Not sure what you mean here.

Line 298: "...we need to map the LPD query format to IPP attributes."
What is meant by the "LPD query format"?  In LPD, the client asks for
either the "short" or the "long" version of a query; no further
granularity is available, right?

I think all the LPD syntax stuff in the document is confusing (at best)
and adds little to the overall value of the document.  The syntax is
described in a different form than that of RFC 1179 (which has no form,
actually).  All that is needed in this mapping document are references
to the appropriate terms and section numbers of RFC 1179; it should be
more than sufficient to assume the reader has knowledge of RFC 1179,
and that this mapping document should not "spoon-feed" the reader.

By the way, in the "Authors" section, you don't have all of the
usual info listed for me.  Please see my standard signature block
below to fill in the blanks.

Also, Norm Jacobs is not listed in the set of authors in the document
footer.

	...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: [email-masked] (Robert Herriot)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:43:23 -0700

> From [email-masked] Tue Jul 15 10:11:10 1997
 
> and that this mapping document should not "spoon-feed" the reader.

I was referring to the format of the long and short response which PSIS
but not RFC 1179 specifies.

---

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 15:32:41 -0400 (EDT)

I think we'd better be careful to scope the mapping document to *only*
LPD (RFC 1179), rather than expanding it to cover PSIS, or even just
parts of PSIS.

If we need a mapping document between PSIS and IPP, then we should
write one as needed.

By the way, hasn't PSIS pretty much passed into relative oblivion?

Also, you included my comments about removing the LPD syntax stuff
from the mapping document.  Do you agree or disagree (or don't care)?

	...jay

----- Begin Included Message -----

>From [email-masked] Tue Jul 15 14:54 EDT 1997
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:43:23 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Robert Herriot)
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPP> PRO - Updated "Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols"
Cc: [email-masked]

----- End Included Message -----