Keith Moore:
> .................................. However, IESG also recognizes
> that lpr is widely deployed, and that a new protocol -- even a much
> better one -- could be disruptive to the installed base.
Don Wright:
>........................ If a vendor wants to have a
>print server that supports both IPP and LPR as an inbound
>print mechanism -- great! But to saddle IPP with LPR is
>simply not reasonable.
I agree with Don. And, perhaps, this sort of explanation is all the
IESG is looking for (I hope).
Harry Lewis.