Good idea. Good compromise.
We're not inventing instant messaging, just putting it to another (good) use.
The cry for interoperatiliby is already at the forefront (and in the headlines).
Whether it comes via IMPP or industry waking up to customer requirements... it
shouldn't really take that long.
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
harryl at us.ibm.com
"Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com> on 07/28/99 05:32:46 PM
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, Richard Shockey <rshockey at ix.netcom.com>
cc: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> Some Instant Messaging resources
Harry,
We will run into trouble trying to reference protocol solutions which do not
yet exist as IETF standards from our IPP Notification documents in the IETF.
However, we could certainly send in an I-D on how to use emerging de facto
standards for IM as a complementary document and elevate it to the same
level as the other IPP Notification documents once the IM work has matured
in the IETF.
How is that as a compromise?
Carl-Uno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: harryl at us.ibm.com [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 1:53 PM
> To: Richard Shockey
> Cc: ipp at pwg.org> Subject: Re: IPP> Some Instant Messaging resources
>>>>> Unfortunately I'm not familiar with all the issues in IM
> working group... I've
> certainly heard the news about MSoft, Aol butting heads. The
> fact that shiny
> standards are off on the horizon doesn't make the scenario
> any less applicable
> for print job notifications. It was years before e-mail became fully
> interoperable (is it?) yet it still drove an enormous amount
> of volume. Since
> MSoft/Aol interop was actually demonstrated (for a day?) I
> suspect a very
> workable protocol is quite attainable, if people really wanted one.
>> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
>harryl at us.ibm.com>>> Richard Shockey <rshockey at ix.netcom.com> on 07/28/99 02:18:02 PM
>> To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, ipp at pwg.org> cc:
> Subject: Re: IPP> Some Instant Messaging resources
>>>>>>> >
> >These are just a few. Maybe not even the best links.
> >
> >Point is... if you think e-mail has a place in print job
> notifications
> >(I'm not
> >saying it doesn't)... then you should agree that IM is even
> a more custom fit.
> >
> >Harry Lewis
> >IBM Printing Systems
> >harryl at us.ibm.com>> Harry I'd agree but I monitor the IMPP WG on a daily basis
> and they are
> IMHO at least 12-18 months or more away from any Standards Track
> document. They are still thrashing out their Goals and
> Requirements. All
> the other solutions are proprietary. It seems to be a pretty hot topic
> these days with the AOL/MS wars. Its a strong high volume
> list with major
> participation by MS, Lotus, Bell Labs and several academic
> teams. They look
> like they are going to be successful. This is clearly a WG to track.
>> My read of the Goals drafts indicates that there is nothing
> strange in the
> proposal that would preclude the use of the protocol by
> devices etc, but
> now is the time to get your 2 cents worth in.
>> On a side note I just got through thrashing a few of the IMPP
> participants
> who were starting to suggest using HTTP as a transport layer .. ( to
> circumvent firewalls ). A reminder of the IPP experience in this area
> silenced them pretty quickly :-)
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Richard Shockey
> Shockey Consulting LLC
> 8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
> St. Louis, MO 63119
> Voice 314.918.9020
> eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax)
> INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey at ix.netcom.com> GSTN Fax 314.918.9015
> MediaGate iPost VoiceMail and Fax 800.260.4464
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>