Subject: Re[2]: IPP> MIME-types and alignment

From: [email-masked] (Bill Wagner)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 18:18:23 -0400

In reply to:
     
     Subject: Re: IPP> MIME-types and alignment
     Author:  AlBrahme <[email-masked]> at Internet
     Date:    8/18/97 6:58 PM

     >>It should be noted that previous investigations intended to bring 
     >>the  MIME registry up to the point of being able to sufficiently 
     >>identify   printer languages have been given up as too major an 
     >>effort with too  little benefit.

     >Well, what about the reverse? How will printer MIB be updated to
     >include MIME  types?
     
     Al:
     
     It is my undersanding that the printer MIB  prtInterpreterLangFamily 
     enumerations of printer page description languages are type 2 
     enumerations, and that the registry is maintained by IANA. By my 
     recall, a request may be submitted to the PWG identifying the name of 
     the language, a brief description, an identification of the owner and 
     a reference to the definitive document describing it. It would also be 
     desirable to provide  information to be included in the 
     prtInterpreterLangLevel and prtInterpreterLangVersion fields.
     
     I did not follow the specific thread that evidentally caused your 
     problem with TiffF, but it should be noted that langTIFF(40) has long 
     been included in the Printer MIB. If TiffF represents a new family, it 
     should be accepted as such. If it repersents a new level and/or 
     version, then there would appear no need to get a new enumeration.
     
     The method of identifying languages, although less than perfect, 
     appeared to best address the constraints of the printer companies who 
     owned and used these languages. This process was not developed 
     arbitrarily and there have been several attempts in the past to make 
     the registry more uniform and usable. There have also been volunteers 
     who were going to re-register all of the combinations in MIME... but 
     for some reason they have not been heard from for some time. 
     
     I suspect that the PWG has no objection to using or including MIME 
     encoding, but in past it has found such coding inappropriate. I would 
     also observe that, because of the tight cost constraints on printers, 
     there has been an attempt to minimize long text string objects. And 
     with regard to the suggestion that less popular languages need not be 
     included, that does not seem to be in the spirit of providing 
     compatability with the existing equipment base.
     
     Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: IPP> MIME-types and alignment
Author:  AlBrahme <[email-masked]> at Internet
Date:    8/18/97 6:58 PM

Bill Wagner wrote:
     
> 
>      It should be noted that previous investigations intended to bring the 
>      MIME registry up to the point of being able to sufficiently identify 
>      printer languages have been given up as too major an effort with too 
>      little benefit.
> 
     
  Well, what about the reverse? How will printer MIB be updated to
include
  MIME  types?
     
 /al

---

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 19:40:10 -0400

Someone wrote:

> Earlier i tried to get TIFF-F  (for fax) included in the printer
> mib but did not get much support.
>
> /al

I don't recall the TIFF-F request, but, if someone has a PDL to
register as a type-2 enum with the Printer MIB, it should require
very little effort and should not meet with a great deal of
resistance.

For example,the following requests from Jeff Rackowitz were readily
accepted:

langIntermecIPL(56), -- Intermec Printer Language for label printers.
-- Technical Manual: "IPL Programmers Reference
-- Manual",
-- Intermec Corporation
langUBIFingerprint(57), -- An intelligent basic-like programming
-- language for label printers.
-- Reference Manual: "UBI Fingerprint
-- 7.1", No. 1-960434-00
-- United Barcode Industries
langUBIDirectProtocol(58), -- An intelligent control language for
-- label printers.
-- Programmers guide: " UBI Direct
-- Protocol", No. 1-960419-00
-- United Barcode Industries

The Printer MIB type-2 enum process is meant to assure adequate information
during registration and to possibly filter redundancy... not to reject
legitimate requests.

I searched the PMP archives and could not find a reference to your request
for TIFF-F. Perhaps you should re-submit it, using the sample, above, as
a template.

Harry Lewis

---

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:00:04 -0400

Larry... you are concerned that

>I asked:
>
>> I would like to inquire if there are clients of printer MIBs
>> >that use the enum list of printer interpreters for anything other
>> >than displaying to the user of a system monitoring device for
>> >informational display
>
>and you answered with a hypothetical ("may be") rather than an actual
>("is, in the following product"):

When you insinuate that an application using prtInterpreterLangFamilyTC
programmatically or coupling knowledge of the Printer MIB with discovery
is a "misuse" of SNMP, then ask for public disclosure and names of
applications that do so, please don't interpret lack of response as
resolution to the concern.

I will assume that this context developed, unintentionally, out of
enthusiastic quest for closure to the discussion, and try to
answer your question in a more straightforward manner.

People will tend to use what is defined and what works. There
is currently no more widely embraced Internet standard related
to printing than the Printer MIB. It is perfectly feasible to use
this standard MIB as part of a scheme to discover printer
capabilities and make programmatic choices based on what is
found and ... yes... there are products which do this today.
I own some of them and I am aware of at least one other source
of applications utilizing this practice - I suspect there are more.

Harry Lewis