That's similar to what I have been asked lately -- basically, how is what we are doing going to add value to a Cloud Print/Imaging deployment in a 2012/2013 timeframe. Is the PWG adding value to existing solutions ? Are we benefitting end-users or vendors with this value? One more than the other?
In the August 2011 "draft", we talk about helping interoperability, speeding adoption, and addressing privacy security and legal issues.
Adoption doesn't seem to be a problem...current solutions are gaining traction at a steady pace. Current CISPs (Cloud Imaging Service Providers) are not going to wait for us to solve their privacy, security, and legal issues -- for large enterprise, these map to regulatory requirements which they have to solve now (or CSPs have already addressed this).
With regards to interoperability, this would definitely be of value to end-users -- they could buy an MFP and connect this MFP to any CISP that supports PWG recommendations/standards. However, the vendor community seems to be leaning towards a cloud imaging business model that is proprietary, locking their customers into THEIR particular brand of cloud (i.e., the recent "dropbox" announcement by Fuji Xerox). This is what I'm trying to avoid by expediting our deliverables. It's ok for vendors to extend a basic model with proprietary competitive advantages, as long as we have something in place (as quickly as possible) on which vendors can provide the most common use-cases for cloud imaging that we are thinking about.
I think our currently specified goals are too "geeky" and I think we need language that clearly describes (in laymans' terms) what we're offering. Our current goals are expressed as "mapping of PWG Print Job Ticket to/from MSPS,PPD, and JDF..." which is ok, but I think we need to provide end-user (or whoever our "real" customer is) scenarios of what we're trying to accomplish.
I received some concerned feedback when I referenced the schedule in the June 2011 charter -- not sure how it will be received when I mention the proposed new schedule. In "tech" years, 18 months is a long time. If we wait until 2013, we may find the ground has shifted out from under us.
Over the next couple of weeks I will try and look at someway to "short circuit" the creation of an initial deliverable that we may can deliver in an earlier timeframe than the proposed schedule modification. The goal here would be to try and leverage IPP for cloud printing for the most COMMON use-case or scenario we envision. The larger scope of what we're trying to do will encompass the full range of functionality we're trying to deliver.
With NAC, none of this is a problem as I think the PWG has been very prescient in our need to drive NAC into imaging devices, ahead of the marketplace's perceived need -- they will thank us later :)
R.
On Dec 8, 2011, at 3:20 AM, Paul Tykodi wrote:
> Hi Randy,
>> In reading through this whole thread, I think one useful document the Cloud Imaging Working Group could prepare immediately would be focused on organizations that have already built a Cloud Print Service or are developing a Cloud Print Service. It would highlight the work being done at this time by the Cloud Imaging Workgroup (mappings), the benefits to knowing about and using PWG Semantics in their Cloud Print Services, and the future plans for the Workgroup to produce other Cloud Print relevant specifications.
>> I believe that we can limit the fragmentation in this particular space, by promoting what the Cloud Imaging Workgroup is building, to those who will ultimately need to decide whether to make their particular offering conform to the standards produced or not.
>> I volunteer to help get such a document written and then delivered to appropriate organizations should the PWG determine it has merit. I don’t have enough bandwidth available to perform the whole task by myself so I will need some help should we decide to try and get this document created in the near term.
>> Thanks.
>> Best Regards,
>> /Paul
> --
> Paul Tykodi
> Principal Consultant
> TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC
>> Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820
> Mobile: 603-866-0712
> E-mail: ptykodi at tykodi.com> WWW: http://www.tykodi.com> From: cloud-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:cloud-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Randy Turner
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 7:43 PM
> To: cloud at pwg.org> Subject: Re: [Cloud] Minutes posted for today's face-to-face meeting
>>> Ok, thanks guys!! See you on the IDS call Thursday...
>> R.
>> On Dec 7, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Ira McDonald wrote:
>>> 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/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 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, 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.
--
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/20111208/8553c18a/attachment-0002.html>