I have been testing a number of the different solutions being offered as
"cloud printing". The offerings have differences as to printers supported,
OS, file types, and add-on software requirements. Looking at these
offerings as an end user, I would need over 8 different solutions to be able
to print from my choice of device to a specified printer.
One thread of more common use appears to be using the Google cloud print as
the input system, then delivering to a printer via email (HP) or other
method.
I share Randy's concern - for an enterprise the number of various solutions
looks like the number of developers * OS * Number of different devices *
type of connectivity * printer type *PDL **** (N!).
I will work on a spreadsheet with some of the more common "cloud" solutions
- even though some of them appear to just be an alternative infrastructure.
When I looked at the slides from early in the PWG, they seem to make sense
as to direction. Maybe there is a way to refine those slides as to a flow
diagram, that shows the points where the standards will provide commonality.
With the ability for developers to rapidly deploy applications and solutions
(like using Android market), it seems the length of time as to publishing
guidelines or a structure could be shortened. An example could be a job
ticket will be specified, service will have to accept or respond with items
unavailable/unsupported.
Larry
From: cloud-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:cloud-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
Randy Turner
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 5:36 PM
To: cloud at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [Cloud] Minutes posted for today's face-to-face meeting
Hi Ira,
I'm not ready to do a press release yet :)
I understand there's a process - but you gotta start somewhere - as I said,
I will try and jot down some ideas for
a path through our basic requirements using just IPP.
R.
On Dec 8, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Ira McDonald wrote:
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/blueroofmusic>
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
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 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/> 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/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
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/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
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/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
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 <tel:%28585%29%20265-8755>
> FAX: (585) 265-7441 <tel:%28585%29%20265-7441>
> 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.orghttps://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud at pwg.orghttps://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud at pwg.orghttps://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> 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/20111209/e4c395f9/attachment-0002.html>