Hi Randy,
Sure - although there was no dissent from the actual call-in participants
(either Cloud WG or Steering Committee) to moving all of the original
deliverables out a calendar year.
That means, I think, that a whole lot of new participants have to volunteer
to do some parallel work or the new draft charter is likely to be realistic
about timeframes.
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 4:19 PM, Randy Turner <rturner at amalfisystems.com>wrote:
>> So the updated schedule is still under discussion? Being as that the
> charter you sent has not been "approved" ?
>> R.
>> On Dec 7, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Ira McDonald wrote:
>> 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/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 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/c05bf9b1/attachment-0002.html>