Hi Randy,
I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on accelerating
delivery of practical Cloud Imaging WG deliverables.
But I do want to caution you that the PWG has a Candidate
Standard development document lifecycle. We've never chosen
to short-circuit it yet and (speaking now as a PWG officer) I
don't think the Steering Committee would be very happy about
doing so for a Cloud project.
So - several working drafts, a Prototype draft, actual prototype,
WG last call, PWG Last Call (that MUST span a F2F meeting),
and PWG Formal Vote - that's well over 6 months with no content
(That's about 2-3 years faster than IETF fast-track).
Just FYI.
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 Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Randy Turner <rturner at amalfisystems.com>wrote:
>> 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* <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* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.****
>>>> --
> 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/20111208/248423f9/attachment-0002.html>