Craig,
>I believe the protocol could be the same between client and server and=
client
and printer. >IPP is a simple solution for Internet job submission but=
it
doesn't address the >complexities of printer management that TIPSI or S=
NMP do.
IPP defines a PRINTER OBJECT and a JOB OBJECT.
IPP has the following operations
- PrintJob (Request/Response)
- (Submit single doc job with data. Unsupportted attributes returned=
.)
- PrintURI ("Pull" printing)
- ValidateJob
- (Like PrintJob w/no data. Validate operations prior to submission.=
)
- CreateJob
- (Setup for multi document job)
- SendDocument (Request/Response)
- SendURI
- GetJob (Request/Response)
- When shopping for the shortest print queue
- CancelJob (Request/Response)
- Probably the best feature of all
- GetPrinterAttributes (Request/Response)
- Granted, a cumbersome intersection with the Printer MIB which (in =
my
opinion) could possibly be strengthened or dilluted dependint on t=
he
tug-of-war between "in-band" and "side-channel" camps.
- GetJobAttributes
- A way to check job progress. Again, overlapping the Job MIB but,
fortunately, correlated and potentially reconcilable.
Notification is the next big feature to be tackled by IPP (analogous to=
"Jobs"
in the Printer MIB, notification was counciously pared from the IPPv1 s=
cope in
order to make progress).
What complexitis of printer management are you referring to which are c=
urrently
missing from IPP? Is it conceivable that these may fall nicely into the=
realm
of notification?
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
ipp-owner at pwg.org on 02/18/98 07:16:30 AM
Please respond to ipp-owner at pwg.org @ internet
To: ipp at pwg.org @ internet
cc:
Subject: RE: IPP> Re: Suggested workplan - host to device protocol
It appears as if this thread is the beginnings of yet another print pro=
tocol.
I would argue in favor of using existing protocols "TIPSI or even SNMP,=
" as
suggested by Don or at least leverage their strengths. I believe the p=
rotocol
could be the same between client and server and client and printer. IP=
P is a
simple solution for Internet job submission but it doesn't address the
complexities of printer management that TIPSI or SNMP do. Is it the ob=
jective
of the PWG to grow IPP to include printer management capabilities like =
TIPSI or
SNMP and richer job control like DPA? I would hope that over time ther=
e would
be a convergence of protocols that meets the needs of embedded devices =
as well
as the need of hosts to servers, perhaps in a single protocol.
**CW
Craig T. Whittle
cwhittle at novell.com
>>> "Turner, Randy" <rturner at sharplabs.com> 02/17/98 08:33AM >>>
I think Roger (correct if I'm wrong, Roger) meant that IPP, as currentl=
y
defined, is the correct solution for server-to-printer protocol, IF the=
printer device already has an embedded web server, like would probably
be used for overall management. And if this is the assertion, then I
tend to agree with it, although it depends on what the exact
*requirements* are for server-to-printer protocol.
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: don at lexmark.com [SMTP:don at lexmark.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 1998 7:24 AM
To: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: IPP> Re: Suggested workplan - host to device
protocol
Roger deBry said:
>Assertions:
>
>(1) IPP, as it is currently defined, is the correct protocol
> for client to server, across the Internet.
>
>(2) IPP, as it is currently defined, is the correct protocol
> for client to server, across an Intranet
>
>(3) IPP, as it is currently defined, is the correct protocol
> between a server and a printer which contains an
> imbedded server.
I can easily agree with Roger on #1 and #2. I think where
the problem lies is with #3. I am not sure how broad the
definition of "imbedded server" is? Does that mean imbedded
IPP server or any server? All of my network printers today
have available what we call an Internal Print Server which
supports a wide range of protocols. Is that what you mean
Roger? I don't think so. I think the definition needs to
be "imbedded, spooling print server." And even then, I think
we have lost a huge amount of control and status information
that is available from TIPSI or even SNMP. Maybe we need
to define some kind of passthrough for IPP that allows
the control and status information for the down and dirty
hardware to be retrieved and set through IPP??
Comments?
**********************************************
* Don Wright don at lexmark.com *
* Product Manager, Strategic Alliances *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
**********************************************
=