Considering the depth of feeling about IPP inadequacy, I suggest that
some attempt be made to more clearly identify the perceived problems...
Is it because IPP does not address the published requirements or because
the requirements were inadequate (or changed).
It seems, for example, that Mr. Walker feels that IPP is not adequate
for the Internet because too many compromises were made for the embedded
implementation. Mr. Moore, on the other hand, seems to suggest that IPP
may be fine for the internet but is inappropriate for an intranet.
(because too many compromises were made). Jay seems to be just unhappy
with IPP, suggesting perhaps that it is not good for anything (because
to many compromises were made?)
The positions point to at least four different protocols; Internet
client to server; Intranet client to server, server to printer, and a
client to printer. Is this what is necessary? Is it not possible to come
up with a sufficiently extensible protocol to handle all of these?
W. A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
OSICOM/DPI