Subject: PMP> Handling the request for an Interpreter enum for TIFF-F

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 19:59:51 -0400 (EDT)

Regarding the issue of assigning a new Interpreter enum to
TIFF-F, as requested by Al Brahme:

> > 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.

The reason Al's request was not processed as quickly as all other
similar requests for Interpreter enums was due to the concern that
TIFF-F was not yet formally resolved as a target standard.  (The last
message on this thread is attached for review.)

I don't know whether this is an accurate assessment of the situation
with TIFF-F (please, no flames), but that's why no action has been
taken on Al's request.

If Al believes he should have an Interpreter enum assigned for TIFF-F,
then he should (again) fire up a thread asking same...except it should
probably be done on the PMP list, and not the IPP list.

Just a thought, though: if TIFF-F is shipping in *real* products,
then regardless of the TIFF-F vs. TIFF-FX issue, it should probably
have an enum assigned.  Any disagreement in this approach?  If not,
then let's assign the enum and retain our sparkling "rapid response"
image in the standards community...  ;-)

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

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

>From [email-masked] Sat Jul 19 00:03 EDT 1997
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 20:05:57 +0000
From: AlBrahme <[email-masked]>
To: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
CC: Scott Isaacson <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPP> ipp & tiff
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Larry Masinter wrote:
> 
> I suggest that IPP wait until IETF-FAX has actually resolved the TIFF-F
> vs TIFF-FX issue in a satisfactory manner before baking TIFF-F into IPP.
> 
> Using enums instead of MIME types for describing media types in an
> internet protocol is a bit suspect, isn't it?
> 
> Larry

I rather suggest that we put the enum for TIFF-F now and we can add
another for TIFF-FX now, or later if it wins. I am in the process of
implementing an IPP prototype and i think getting a product out now is
more important than delaying. Since I think fax over internet is going
to be major use of ipp (forget about Kinko's etc.. they will be nothing
compared to fax over internet) it is important for IPP to get this fax
friendly feature early.

 /al

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

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 04:14:42 PDT

> probably be done on the PMP list, and not the IPP list.

Part of the difficulty in maintaining parallel registrations is that the
registration process is different and thus the registrations will get
out of sync.

If you're ever going to do print-by-reference through a URL, you'll need
to know the MIME types of that the printer accepts (and not its enums),
in order to properly set the "accept:" headers on the request for the
referenced data.

If you're ever going to allow a user to examine a job they've submitted
in the past, you'll need to know the MIME type of the job data, so that
you can properly set the Content-Type. 
-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter