Hi Randy,
Not really (ready to use IPP now in Cloud).
There's no Register-Client operation. There's
no geo-location info (it's coming in JPS3 and
IPP Everywhere next year). There's no UUIDs
for Client, Printer, and Job - a necessity.
There are no extension operations for Printers
behind firewalls talking to Cloud Services
(Register-Printer, Fetch-Job, Accept-Job,
Reject-Job, Notify-Job) - I wrote them up on
slides a year ago - that's it.
We don't have the IPP operations to make
Cloud Print work like any of the current shipping
implementations.
That's the problem.
The minutes of Cloud WG meetings have recorded
WG reviews of this current draft charter for 5 months
and the discussion w/ SC about waiting for MSPS.
The link on website is to the last *approved* charter.
There's no disconnect here. The SC minutes are
also publicly archived with their discussions.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Randy Turner <rturner at amalfisystems.com>wrote:
>>> The charter published on the website is from June 2011 (or at least that's
> what the link says), which says that we're delivering a prototype IPP
> binding spec by Q4 2011, last call Q1 2012.
> If this is incorrect or outdated, then that's fine. Maybe we should update
> the website if that's the case.
>> The charter you reference in your email shows only a prototype draft for
> IPP in Q4 / 2012 ?
>> Which means you may not see implementation of this until sometime mid 2013
> maybe.
>> If there are multiple vendors shipping products now, by mid 2013, there
> will be quite a few deployments that will have to support whatever they do
> now, and whatever the PWG proposes. Or have a way to re-provision their
> network (on the fly) with something new.
>> Seems like we could get something out the door quicker than
> this...something that would nail down how to use just IPP (for now) in a
> cloud application.
>> R.
>>> On Dec 7, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Ira McDonald wrote:
>> Hi Randy,
>> Ahem - about threats to Q1 2012 schedule.
>> The current draft charter for the Cloud Imaging WG (from September)
> moves all work items out a *year* and instead adds the Mapping spec
> as near-term (depending on Print Job Ticket written in SM WG).
>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/wd-cloud-charter-20110926.pdf>> The Steering Committee deferred approval of that charter until we have
> resolves the license/copyright/reference text for the MSPS (aka XPS)
> chapter the Mapping spec.
>> Cloud Print is shipping (from lots of people). It's using PPD, XPS, and
> probably other job tickets now - that's where we see the "low hanging
> fruit".
>> New protocol work in IPP or SOAP bindings (for Client and Printer
> registration with Cloud, for Fetch Jobs, NotifyJobs, etc.) is not "low
> hanging fruit", we think.
>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com> Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
> Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
>>>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Randy Turner <rturner at amalfisystems.com>wrote:
>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>> I am sensitive to the fact that there was little progress in the last
>> year, and I think this is my point.
>>>> As I said in my most recent message, I'm not calling into question the
>> "work" that is being done, I'm curious as to whether the "sequence" or
>> "priority" of this work with regards to publishing a Cloud Imaging profile
>> could be an issue.
>>>> What I would like to gauge from the working group is whether or not we
>> could declare the job ticket as an optional "package" carried by a cloud
>> printing job...essentially making it an abstraction in the cloud imaging
>> model for now and lock-down/get consensus/publish a model that takes care
>> of all the "low-hanging fruit" ASAP to prevent any potential fragmentation
>> of the cloud imaging space.
>>>> It's possible to publish a Cloud Imaging solution without detailing out
>> job tickets -- I print jobs every day that don't use job tickets. However,
>> as I said before, I'm not calling into question the work that's going...I
>> think it's good work, I'm just looking at this project with my "PM Hat" on..
>>>> If the Cloud Imaging WG feels there's no threat to fragmentation or that
>> there's no risk to the Q1 / 2012 schedule, then that's fine too -
>>>> R.
>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2011, at 2:15 PM, William Wagner wrote:
>>>> > Randy,
>> >
>> > One of the intentions of the Cloud Imaging group was to advance the use
>> of
>> > the PWG Semantic Model elements in cloud imaging implementations. A well
>> > defined PWG Job ticket is a necessary part of the Cloud Printing (and
>> later
>> > Cloud Imaging) modeling effort and therefore is not bogging down the
>> > progress of a Cloud Printing solution. However, the workgroup believed
>> that
>> > correlating the PWG Job Ticket elements with elements of Print Job
>> Tickets
>> > currently being used (especially PPD and so-called XPS) both would
>> assist in
>> > encouraging consistent and PWG element coherent use of these other job
>> > tickets and would prepare the way for use of the PWG Print Job Ticket in
>> > these extant cloud Printing implementations. Because the mapping effort
>> is
>> > primarily addressed at existing Cloud Printing applications, it may be
>> > considered as preempting the work on the PWG Cloud Printing solution.
>> > However, since we went almost a year without making much progress on
>> the PWG
>> > Cloud Printing solution, I suggest that the mapping effort is more a
>> > constructive diversion rather than a blocking (or bogging) effort.
>> > Bill Wagner
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: cloud-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:cloud-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
>> > Zehler, Peter
>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:40 PM
>> > To: Randy Turner; cloud at pwg.org>> > Subject: RE: [Cloud] Minutes posted for today's face-to-face meeting
>> >
>> > Randy,
>> >
>> > The "PWG Print Job Ticket and Associated Capabilities" specification is
>> > not bound to Cloud Printing. Cloud Printing is one environment that
>> > would benefit from an open specification for Print Job Tickets and the
>> > standardization for the representation of the capabilities and defaults.
>> > All we are really doing is splitting out the job ticket, capabilities
>> > and defaults from the PWG semantic model. This, of course, is based on
>> > IPP and enjoys wide support across the industry. We have an XML schema
>> > encoding that will be released along with the specification.
>> >
>> > Pete
>> >
>> >
>> > Peter Zehler
>> >
>> > Xerox Research Center Webster
>> > Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com>> > Voice: (585) 265-8755
>> > FAX: (585) 265-7441
>> > US Mail: Peter Zehler
>> > Xerox Corp.
>> > 800 Phillips Rd.
>> > M/S 128-25E
>> > Webster NY, 14580-9701
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: cloud-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:cloud-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
>> > Randy Turner
>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:24 PM
>> > To: cloud at pwg.org>> > Subject: Re: [Cloud] Minutes posted for today's face-to-face meeting
>> >
>> > Hi Guys,
>> >
>> > I'm assuming all of this job ticket discussion is reusable outside of
>> > "Cloud" applications ? Or we only talking about "Cloud-specific"
>> > attributes of print-job-tickets ?
>> >
>> > If this discussion is NOT cloud-specific, then I would hope that this
>> > discussion does not artificially bog down the progress of a Cloud
>> > Printing solution...
>> >
>> > R.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Dec 7, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Michael Sweet wrote:
>> >
>> >> All,
>> >>
>> >> I have posted the minutes from today's face-to-face to:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/minutes/cloud-f2f-minutes-20111207.pdf>> >>
>> >> Action items:
>> >>
>> >> - Justin to work with Microsoft Legal on the appropriate
>> > citation/reference to MSPS based on the new license for inclusion with
>> > the MSPS content in the mapping document, and any process for the PWG to
>> > make a formal request
>> >> - Ron or Bill to post a call for wider participation of driver
>> > developers for the XPS/MSPS stuff
>> >> - Mike to make "first-index" in JPS3 1-based instead of 0-based
>> >>
>> >> _________________________________________________________
>> >> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
>> >> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> cloud mailing list
>> >> cloud at pwg.org>> >> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
>> > MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cloud mailing list
>> > cloud at pwg.org>> > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud>> >
>> > --
>> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> > believed to be clean.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cloud mailing list
>> > cloud at pwg.org>> > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud>> >
>> >
>>>>>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>> cloud mailing list
>>cloud at pwg.org>>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud>>>>>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
>cloud at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud>>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/cloud/attachments/20111207/167daeab/attachment-0002.html>