Hi,
Very good comments Nancy!
Using IPP as Imaging Peripheral Protocol (to keep the
IPP acronym) seems counterproductive - because it
confuses both the standards reader and the end user.
I object to putting "Web Services" into the name at all
- the latest hot protocol stack will surely change again
and other non-WS bindings will probably be desirable.
I suggest "Imaging Job Protocol (IJP)".
Or "Imaging Equipment Protocol (IEP)".
Or, to evolve from IPP, "Internet Multifunction Protocol
(IMFP)" - web searches don't find collisions with any of
these.
Note that "Ixxx Device Protocol (IDP)" collides with
Xerox and NetWare protocol stacks.
And "Imaging Service/System Protocol (ISP)" collides
badly with Internet Service Provider.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
winter:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
summer:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 5:54 PM, <Nancy.Chen at okidata.com> wrote:
>> Hi Pete,
>> Here are my comments.
>> *“Introduction” Section*
>> Line 16* – *I would like to clarify the meaning of "protocol" used here *“Imaging
> Peripherals Protocol”? * Is this a concrete protocol binding from MFD
> semantic model? If so, how about “Internet Imaging Protocol”, being a
> better advancement from "Internet Printing Protocol". Or “Imaging Web
> Services"?
>> * “Evolution of Semantic Model” Section*
>> 1. Could we have a better title? What about “*Proven and Expected
> Benefits of PWG Semantic Model*” ? * *Or simply "*Benefits of PWG Semantic
> Model" *with subsections on "Proven" and "expected" benefits? I think it
> better to use “Benefits” as the theme and weave the evolution of the
> semantic model as the roadmap to achieve these benefits – essentially
> telling the “Why” of the Semantic Model.
> 2. With “benefits” as the theme, I think it’s better to have
> subtitled sections clearly list all proven or expected benefits of PWG
> Semantic Model.
> 3. Along with benefits, I think it's better to have the
> disadvantages of full-proprietary approach without a standard that could
> cost the entire imaging device/solution industry be illustrated in parallel
> to make reader truly understand the cited benefits.
> 4. Line 28-30 –The “gateway” is used here and also line 134 to
> imply a specific architecture component used for concrete protocol mapping
> involving syntactic translation from one data model to the other for
> different protocols. But “gateway” has many other meanings in general, the
> use of this term can easily lead to confusion for reader from my opinion.
>> *“Model Extensibility and Vendor Differentiation” Section*
>> If we have consensus on changing the title of the previous section to “*Proven
> and Expected Benefits of PWG Semantic Model*”, then I think it’s better
> to fold this section under the previous section as a subsection.
>> *“Value of Web Services Mapping” Section*
>> In terms of the "Web Services" technology, there maybe other approaches
> such as RPC, REST, other than SOAP & XML. A brief mentioning of this and
> explain your defintion of "Web Services" here equates to "SOAP protocol and
> XML data binding" approach would be helpful to clear confusion.
>> Line 59-60 : I feel some transition is needed from the first paragraph to
> the list of WS-* standard associated with web services. What are you trying
> to say to the Value of Web Services mapping by listing these standards?
>> Lines 78-82: It’s not clear to me that this paragraph add more value to the
> “value of Web Services Mapping”.
>> Like previous sections, I think it's better to also mention the
> disadvantages of other mapping approaches in order to convince readers this
> is the best.
>> *“Effective Standards and PWG”*
>> Line 112-117 beginning with "Proprietary": I got lost here. Is this
> sentence trying to explain the disadvantage of a de-facto standard to those
> PWG members who are not the leader/owner of the de-facto standard? Please
> clarify.
>> *“Internet Printing Protocol Becoming Imaging Peripheral Protocol”*
>> Line 138-139: “For example, moving IPP to an XML encoding reduces the scope
> of “attribute-fidelity” to be element-wide instead of operation-wide,
> allowing a more expressive Job Ticket.” How is this a true benefit? Please
> give a concrete example.
>> Line 140-141: Should the “IPP view of Print Service” be “Print Service view
> of IPP”? It’s not clear how the IPP view of Print Service can enable the
> expansion of web services based print service protocol to include other MFD
> services.
>> It’s very confusing the way “Semantic model” is sometimes used
> interchangeably with a concrete “protocol”. Maybe here “IPP view of Print
> Service” should be stated as “IPP Semantic Model view of Print Service”?
>> In all previous section, the word “protocol” seems to mean a concrete
> protocol mapping of the semantic model”.
>> We are advancing IPP “protocol” to web services based Print Service, and
> expanding that to MFD services, why bother to name it backward (in terms of
> technology advancement) to Imaging “peripheral” “protocol”? Why not
> “imaging web services”?
>> -Nancy
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nancy Chen
> Principal Engineer
> Solutions and Technology
> Oki Data
> 2000 Bishops Gate Blvd.
> Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
> Phone: (856)222-7006
> Email: Nancy.Chen at okidata.com>>>> *"Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com>*
> Sent by: mfd-bounces at pwg.org>> 01/11/2010 07:36 AM
> To
> <mfd at pwg.org>
> cc
> Subject
> [MFD] Reminder, action request :Comments needed on MFD white paper
>>>>> From: Zehler, Peter
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 8:45 AM
> To: mfd at pwg.org> Subject: Comments needed on MFD white paper
>>>> All,
>> I need comments on the white paper on the goals for the MFD modeling
> effort
> <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/GoalForTheMFDModelingEffort20100108> .pdf>. The only changes to this version is the addition of line numbers
> and an updated date. Per our teleconference yesterday comments are due
> by close of business Monday January 11. I will turn the document around
> quickly. The goal is PWG wide distribution on Thursday January 14.
>> Thanks,
>> Pete
>>>>>> Peter Zehler
>> Xerox Research Center Webster
> Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com> Voice: (585) 265-8755
> FAX: (585) 265-7441
> US Mail: Peter Zehler
> Xerox Corp.
> 800 Phillips Rd.
> M/S 128-25E
> Webster NY, 14580-9701
>>>>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>>> _______________________________________________
> mfd mailing list
>mfd at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd>>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>> _______________________________________________
> mfd mailing list
>mfd at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd>>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/mfd/attachments/20100112/fb7b8434/attachment-0001.html>