Subject: Re: P1394> EMAIL Poll

From: "Eric Anderson" <[email-masked]>
Date: 3 Mar 98 21:21:55 -0800

> During the 1394 PWG 2/23 telecon, it was suggested we undertake an non-
> binding email poll to 
> gauge interest in various proposals being considered by the working
group.
> 
> Please forward your reply to the 1394 PWG reflector - [email-masked]
> 
> If possible, please reply by Friday, February 27th, 1998.

Oops, it's March 3 already.  Sorry!

> ===================================================================
> 
> 1. Please rank the following proposals according to your interest level
using
> the following scale ( 10 = High level 
> of interest vs. 0 = No interest).
> 
> 	(   )   1284.4 Over Data FIFO Architecture (DFA)
> 	(   )   1284.4 Over SBP-2
> 	(   )   Direct Printing Protocol - (current PWG-C proposal 0.71)
> 	(10 )   SBP-2 Native - (current PWG proposal 0.1c)
> 	(   )   Other (describe)__________________

I haven't studied PWG 0.1c (or 0.1d) in detail, but a native SBP-2
printing protocol is most interesting to me.

> 2. Please provide background comments on your ranking. 
> 
> 	Why do you prefer to use the given solution?
> 	Why should others consider the given solution?

SBP-2 offers the best performance and the best fit with 1394.
It leads us in a direction that will scale well over many years.
It is also easy for OS vendors to support well.

> 	Does the the given solution meet the existing requirements?

I believe that SBP-2, with a single login, can meet all of the
existing requirements.  However, I haven't seen a concise report
of those requirements, nor have I been able to participate in
depth, so I could be wrong.

> 	What issues are you aware of (if any) with the given solution?

SBP-2 is still hard to understand.  Since so many people have
supported it in this poll, hopefully more clear and detailed
proposals will start to emerge.

> 	What is your opinion on the best way to move the discussion forward?

This poll seems to help a lot.  I would like to see Microsoft
continue to participate more in the discussion.

> 3) Opinions on multiple printing protocols;
> 
>  	(   )   There should be ONLY 1 printing protocol in any case and any
>            application.
>  	(   )   2 protocols are ACCEPTABLE if necessary for different
situations
>  	(   )   I PREFER more than 2 protocols 
>  	(   )   Other (describe)__________________

I think that the reality is that we will see several protocols at
first, including SBP2, IP1394, proprietary, and DPP.  Then after
some time, we will see even more new protocols (many proprietary).
But only a small number of those protocols will dominate, being
supported by almost all printers.  Probably this will include SBP2,
maybe IP1394, and probably DPP or something similar.  When we have
a small number of protocols that dominate, then most people can
start to benefit from common protocols and interoperability, and
this will further strengthen the use of a small set of core
protocols.

--------------------------------------
Eric Anderson            [email-masked]
Apple Computer, Inc.      408-974-8187
--------------------------------------