The work envisioned by the IPP charter heavily overlaps with the work being
progressed by the internet facsimile group and charter. The functions of
the groups are remarkably similar. The ietf-fax group is looking at devices
which will accept a MIME object and either print it directly or translate
it to T.30 (group-3 fax). One of the primary objects considered by the fax
group for printing is the image/fax-format-tbd which is possibly generated
by a legacy fax device. However, other formats, such as text/plain, and
probably html are to be accepted and "printed" by the internet-fax gateway.
The new protocol proposed for printing has been defined by the fax group as
a session-oriented approach, as opposed to document-oriented store and
forward. I have no doubt that the fax work will be accepted since there are
real $ improvements in fax transmission costs that can be realized.
The comments about LPD having 28 implementations seems to support further
work to refine this and reduce the number of variations.
I would like to propose that these groups are harmonized as follows:
IPP group will focus on a mime object for printer control (such as paper
type, binding, etc.) which can be combined with any relevant MIME type,
including printer language media-types.
This work can then be use in any protocol, such as SMTP or other simple
submission protocol, including by the facsimile group for transmission of
these hardcopy output suggestions to the receiving fax device or document
store. The hardcopy output suggestions can be maintained with the document
for future use. These controls are missing from popular terminal-oriented
media-types, such as html, PDF, etc.
2 cents.
-Raymond
At 11:10 AM 12/23/96 -0800, Carl-Uno Manros wrote:
>Harald and Keith,
>>below follows the revised proposed charter text for IPP, based on our
>discussions in San Jose and follow up discussions in the group afterwards.
>>The references to producing mappings to HTTP and LDAP have been deleted,
>although some PWG members are likely to be working on those subject as
>part of their prototyping efforts.
>>The subject of RFC 1179 was further discussed, and it turns out that not
>a single vendor of printers or print servers has expressed any interest
>in spending time and effort on the subject. Contrary to opinions expressed
>in San Jose, RFC 1179 is not used by millions of users; they use one or
>several of the mostly incompatible variations of LPR. One PWG member has
>dealt with writing gateways between 28 (!) different variations. The printer
>industry considers RFC 1179 as historic and has no interest in spending
>the time to try to make a proper IETF standard out of this RFC, that was
>never even considered for the standards track (only informational).
>Does any of you still have objections to leave RFC 1179 be?
>>I hope that we can now get your official OK for the WG, so that the real
>work can be continued without further delay.
>>I have also included a copy of the minutes from the BOF meeting in case
>you have not already picked them up from the IPP archive.
>>Best Regards and a Merry Christmas,
>>Carl-Uno
>>Carl-Uno Manros
>Xerox Corporation
>(send from home)
>>---
>>(DRAFT 12/23/96)
>>IETF Internet Printing Protocol (ipp) WG
>>Chair(s):
> Carl-Uno Manros <manros at cp10.es.xerox.com>
>>Applications Area Director(s):
> Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>
> Harald Alvestrand <Harald.T.Alvestrand at uninett.no>
>>Area Advisor:
> TBD
>>Mailing List Information:
> General Discussion: <ipp at pwg.org>
> To Subscribe: <ipp-request at pwg.org>
> Archive: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/>>Editors:
> Scott Isaacson <scott_isaacson at novell.com>
> Robert Herriot <robert.herriot at eng.sun.com>
> Don Wright <don at lexmark.com>
>>Description of Working Group:
>>The goal of this working group is to define a new application level
>distributed printing protocol as well as defining naming and service
>registration attributes for printing. The protocol shall support a
>global, distributed environment where print service users (clients,
>applications, drivers, etc.) cooperate and interact with print service
>providers (servers, printers, gateways, etc.).
>>The working group will leverage existing (and emerging) technologies
>for: authentication, authorization, privacy, and commercial transactions.
>The working group will describe a generic directory schema that supports
>printing, which can be mapped to existing standards for directories.
>>The working group shall strive to coordinate its activities with other
>printing-related standards bodies.
>>The new job submission protocol should strive not to preclude any
>types of output devices (e.g., fax, printer, gateway). Also, the
>working group will define extensibility paths to maximize interoperability
>and minimize conflict.
>>The latest IETF requirements for management, security, and inter-
>nationalization shall be covered.
>>Deliverables and Milestones:
>>Done - Mailing list and archive
>>November 1996 - Submit first set of Internet-Drafts
>>December 1996 - BOF in IETF meeting in San Jose, CA, USA
>>March 1997 - Submit Internet-Drafts
>>April 1997 - Review of specification in IETF meeting in Memphis, TN, USA
>>May 1997 - At least 2 implemented prototypes
>>May 1997 - Submit document(s) to the IESG for Proposed Standard
>>Current Internet-Drafts:
>> IPP-requirements: <draft-wright-ipp-req-01-txt>
> IPP-draft: <draft-isaacson-ipp-inf0-00.txt>
>>Planned RFCs:
>> Internet Printing Protocol: Requirements and Scenarios (Informational)
> Internet Printing Protoco/1.0: Model and Semantics (Standards Track)
> Internet Printing Protoco/1.0: MIME Encoding (Standards Track)
> Internet Printing Protoco/1.0: Directory Schema (Standards Track)
>>------
>>Internet Printing Protocol
>Birds of a Feather Session
>>December 12, 1996
>>Minutes taken by: Don Wright <don at lexmark.com>
>>>The meeting was called to order at 1:03 PM
>>Carl-Uno Manros (proposed WG Chair) reviewed the agenda for the meeting
>>Carl-Uno gave a short talk about the lack of IETF standards for printing.
>He also discussed how this effort started under the Printer Working Group.
>>Don Wright presented an overview of the Internet printing requirements. The
>following were significant issues raised by the attendees:
> - firewalls
> - there are no "operators", only users
> - using HTTP as a transport
> - LPR/LPD/RFC1179 discussion
>>Carl-Uno presented the charter
> - Will address needs of normal, end-user roles
> - Will not address needs of the operator and administrator roles
> - The group will strive to build on existing standards and technologies
> - Would like to use existing standards for directories
> - The submitting protocol should not exclude other devices (fax, etc.)
>>Harald Alvestrand stated that HTTP 1.0 is not an IETF standard. HTTP 1.1 is
>a proposed standard that might be applicable to IPP.
>>Suggestion from the meeting -- don't explicitly tie IPP to HTTP.
>>Keith Moore: Should there be a scenario statement of how to use IPP without
>a directry server?
>>Carl-Uno presented the planned drafts list which included:
>>Requirements (Informational)
>MIME Types for IPP (Standards Track)
>Application Protocol - IPP (Standards Track)
>IPP on HTTP (Standards Track)
>IPP Directory Support -LDAP Object Classes for Printers (Standards Track)
>>Carl-Uno presented the deliverables and milestones for the project.
>>There was a discussion as to whether the group should do the work on the
>various drafts in parallel versus serial. Several combinations of serial
>and parallel were also discussed. No conclusion.
>>Scott Isaacson presented the IPP protocol document. The following issues
>were raised:
> - Will the protocol support printer configuration - No, not in 1.0
> - Continued discussion on using HTTP.
>>Open Discussion:
>>1) Ray Lutz raised a concern that there was some overlap between the work
>proposed by the proposed fax group and the proposed print group. This
>overlap will be assessed by the directors.
>>2) HTTP issue again. Suggested using specific HTML as well to more strong
>tie IPP to HTTP.
>>3) A concern was raised about running over HTTP to get through firewalls.
>This plan was called "bogus" by one on the attendees.
>>4) Steve Zilles reminded the group that HTTP can be used in both directions
>to not only send the job but also to retrieve status, etc.
>>5) Suggestion to define the MIME objects and encoding first.
>>6) Harald Alverstrand wanted the charter to be simplified by removing some
>of the work items such as removing the LDAP mapping and the HTTP mapping.
>>7) More discussion about using RFC1179. Someone suggested the group should
>fix RFC 1179 as a part of this project. There was no interest on the part
>of the core group to do this.
>>Carl-Uno asked for a show of hands as to whether this effort was worthy of a
>being charter. Approximately half of the attendees felt it was. When asked
>who thought the effort shouldn't be charter, only 1 person raised his hand.
>That person's convern was that the proposed charter was too broad.
>>The meeting ended at 3:08PM
>>---
>>>
/***********************************************************************
** Raymond Lutz Voice: 619-447-3246
** Director R & D, Cognisys, Inc. Fax: 619-447-6872
** EC Chair, MFPA MFPA: 1-800-603-MFPA
** 1010 Old Chase Ave., Suite B mailto:raylutz at cognisys.com
** El Cajon (San Diego Co.), CA 92020 USA http://www.cognisys.com
** http://www.mfpa.org
***********************************************************************/