attachment-0001
Hi,<br><br>Very good comments Nancy!<br><br>Using IPP as Imaging Peripheral Protocol (to keep the<br>IPP acronym) seems counterproductive - because it<br>confuses both the standards reader and the end user.<br><br>I object to putting "Web Services" into the name at all <br>
- the latest hot protocol stack will surely change again<br>and other non-WS bindings will probably be desirable.<br><br>I suggest "Imaging Job Protocol (IJP)".<br><br>Or "Imaging Equipment Protocol (IEP)".<br>
<br>Or, to evolve from IPP, "Internet Multifunction Protocol <br>(IMFP)" - web searches don't find collisions with any of <br>these.<br><br>Note that "Ixxx Device Protocol (IDP)" collides with<br>Xerox and NetWare protocol stacks.<br>
<br>And "Imaging Service/System Protocol (ISP)" collides<br>badly with Internet Service Provider.<br><br>Cheers,<br>- Ira<br><br clear="all">Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)<br>Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG<br>
Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG<br>IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB<br>Blue Roof Music/High North Inc<br>email: <a href="mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com">blueroofmusic@gmail.com</a><br>winter:<br> 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176<br>
734-944-0094<br>summer:<br> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839<br> 906-494-2434<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 5:54 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Nancy.Chen@okidata.com">Nancy.Chen@okidata.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><font face="sans-serif" size="2">Hi Pete,</font>
<br>
<br><font face="sans-serif" size="2">Here are my comments.</font>
<br>
<br><font face="sans-serif" size="2"><b>“Introduction” Section</b></font>
<p><font face="sans-serif" size="2">Line 16<b> – </b>I would like to clarify
the meaning of "protocol" used here <b>“Imaging Peripherals
Protocol”? </b> Is this a concrete protocol binding from MFD semantic
model? If so, how about “Internet Imaging Protocol”, being a better
advancement from "Internet Printing Protocol". Or “Imaging Web
Services"? </font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2"><b> “Evolution of Semantic Model”
Section</b></font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2">1. Could
we have a better title? What about “<b>Proven and Expected Benefits of
PWG Semantic Model</b>” ? <b> </b>Or simply "<b>Benefits of
PWG Semantic Model" </b>with subsections on "Proven" and
"expected" benefits? I think it better to use “Benefits” as
the theme and weave the evolution of the semantic model as the roadmap
to achieve these benefits – essentially telling the “Why” of the Semantic
Model.</font>
<br><font face="sans-serif" size="2">2. With
“benefits” as the theme, I think it’s better to have subtitled sections
clearly list all proven or expected benefits of PWG Semantic Model.</font>
<br><font face="sans-serif" size="2">3. Along
with benefits, I think it's better to have the disadvantages of full-proprietary
approach without a standard that could cost the entire imaging device/solution
industry be illustrated in parallel to make reader truly understand the
cited benefits.</font>
<br><font face="sans-serif" size="2">4. Line
28-30 –The “gateway” is used here and also line 134 to imply a specific
architecture component used for concrete protocol mapping involving syntactic
translation from one data model to the other for different protocols. But
“gateway” has many other meanings in general, the use of this term can
easily lead to confusion for reader from my opinion.</font>
<br>
<br><font face="sans-serif" size="2"><b>“Model Extensibility and Vendor
Differentiation” Section</b></font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2">If we have consensus on changing the
title of the previous section to “<b>Proven and Expected Benefits of PWG
Semantic Model</b>”, then I think it’s better to fold this section
under the previous section as a subsection.</font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2"><b>“Value of Web Services Mapping”
Section</b></font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2">In terms of the "Web Services"
technology, there maybe other approaches such as RPC, REST, other than
SOAP & XML. A brief mentioning of this and explain your defintion of
"Web Services" here equates to "SOAP protocol and XML data
binding" approach would be helpful to clear confusion.</font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2">Line 59-60 : I feel some transition
is needed from the first paragraph to the list of WS-* standard associated
with web services. What are you trying to say to the Value of Web
Services mapping by listing these standards?</font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2">Lines 78-82: It’s not clear to me that
this paragraph add more value to the “value of Web Services Mapping”.</font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2">Like previous sections, I think it's
better to also mention the disadvantages of other mapping approaches in
order to convince readers this is the best.</font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2"><b>“Effective Standards and PWG”</b></font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2">Line 112-117 beginning with "Proprietary":
I got lost here. Is this sentence trying to explain the disadvantage of
a de-facto standard to those PWG members who are not the leader/owner of
the de-facto standard? Please clarify.</font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2"><b>“Internet Printing Protocol Becoming
Imaging Peripheral Protocol”</b></font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2">Line 138-139: “For example, moving IPP
to an XML encoding reduces the scope of “attribute-fidelity” to be element-wide
instead of operation-wide, allowing a more expressive Job Ticket.” How
is this a true benefit? Please give a concrete example.</font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2">Line 140-141: Should the “IPP view of
Print Service” be “Print Service view of IPP”? It’s not clear how the
IPP view of Print Service can enable the expansion of web services based
print service protocol to include other MFD services.</font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2">It’s very confusing the way “Semantic
model” is sometimes used interchangeably with a concrete “protocol”.
Maybe here “IPP view of Print Service” should be stated as “IPP Semantic
Model view of Print Service”?</font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2">In all previous section, the word “protocol”
seems to mean a concrete protocol mapping of the semantic model”.</font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2">We are advancing IPP “protocol” to
web services based Print Service, and expanding that to MFD services, why
bother to name it backward (in terms of technology advancement) to Imaging
“peripheral” “protocol”? Why not “imaging web services”?</font>
</p><p><font face="sans-serif" size="2">-Nancy<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Nancy Chen<br>
Principal Engineer<br>
Solutions and Technology<br>
Oki Data<br>
2000 Bishops Gate Blvd.<br>
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054<br>
Phone: (856)222-7006<br>
Email: <a href="mailto:Nancy.Chen@okidata.com" target="_blank">Nancy.Chen@okidata.com</a></font>
</p><p>
</p><p>
<br>
<br>
</p><table width="100%">
<tbody><tr valign="top">
<td width="40%"><font face="sans-serif" size="1"><b>"Zehler, Peter"
<<a href="mailto:Peter.Zehler@xerox.com" target="_blank">Peter.Zehler@xerox.com</a>></b> </font>
<br><font face="sans-serif" size="1">Sent by: <a href="mailto:mfd-bounces@pwg.org" target="_blank">mfd-bounces@pwg.org</a></font>
<p><font face="sans-serif" size="1">01/11/2010 07:36 AM</font>
</p></td><td width="59%">
<table width="100%">
<tbody><tr valign="top">
<td>
<div align="right"><font face="sans-serif" size="1">To</font></div>
</td><td><font face="sans-serif" size="1"><<a href="mailto:mfd@pwg.org" target="_blank">mfd@pwg.org</a>></font>
</td></tr><tr valign="top">
<td>
<div align="right"><font face="sans-serif" size="1">cc</font></div>
</td><td>
</td></tr><tr valign="top">
<td>
<div align="right"><font face="sans-serif" size="1">Subject</font></div>
</td><td><font face="sans-serif" size="1">[MFD] Reminder, action request :Comments
needed on MFD white paper</font></td></tr></tbody></table>
<br>
<table>
<tbody><tr valign="top">
<td>
</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<br></td></tr></tbody></table><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
<br><font size="2"><tt>From: Zehler, Peter<br>
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 8:45 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:mfd@pwg.org" target="_blank">mfd@pwg.org</a><br>
Subject: Comments needed on MFD white paper<br>
</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size="2"><tt>All,<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size="2"><tt>I need comments on the white paper on the goals for
the MFD modeling<br>
effort<br>
<<a href="ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/GoalForTheMFDModelingEffort20100108" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/GoalForTheMFDModelingEffort20100108</a><br>
.pdf>. The only changes to this version is the addition of line numbers<br>
and an updated date. Per our teleconference yesterday comments are
due<br>
by close of business Monday January 11. I will turn the document
around<br>
quickly. The goal is PWG wide distribution on Thursday January 14.<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size="2"><tt>Thanks,<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size="2"><tt>Pete<br>
</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size="2"><tt>Peter Zehler<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size="2"><tt>Xerox Research Center Webster<br>
Email: Peter.Zehler@Xerox.com<br>
Voice: (585) 265-8755<br>
FAX: (585) 265-7441<br>
US Mail: Peter Zehler<br>
Xerox Corp.<br>
800 Phillips Rd.<br>
M/S 128-25E<br>
Webster NY, 14580-9701<br>
</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size="2"><tt>--<br>
This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>
believed to be clean.</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br></div></div><font size="2"><tt>_______________________________________________<br>
mfd mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mfd@pwg.org" target="_blank">mfd@pwg.org</a><br>
<a href="https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd" target="_blank">https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd</a></tt></font>
<br><div class="im">
<br><br>--
<br>This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br>dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/" target="_blank"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br>believed to be clean.
</div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
mfd mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mfd@pwg.org">mfd@pwg.org</a><br>
<a href="https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd" target="_blank">https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.