In fact to further the discussion on defining such a "robust host-to-device"
network printing protocol (probably NOT across firewalls) and to test
whether we can really build on IPP (as Harry and I advocate):
People that are raising issues with IPP as the "robust host-to-device
network printing protocol when not going across firewalls",
please indicate whether the problem is with the current IPP Model document
or the current IPP protocol document.
For the problems with the Model document, they may be resolvable by
extending the Model, by, say, adding more Printer attributes and maybe
a Set-Printer-Attributes operation? And, of course, notification.
For problems that were with the protocol (mapping) document, the PWG might
develop a second IPP protocol document for use in the host to printer
connection whose semantics would be the same (extended) IPP Model document.
This second IPP protocol mapping document would be a PWG standard, not an
IETF standard, since the document deals with the host to printer connection
only (and not the Internet).
NOTE that some printers would implement both IPP protocol mappings, if they
wanted to be used across the Internet and in the host to printer connection.
But with the same semantic model, such a dual implementation would not be
a big burden.
Tom
At 16:04 02/10/1998 PST, Harry Lewis wrote:
>If we were to address a new, standard, host-to-device printing protocol
>
>> Now if somebody wants to have a separate debate about writing a really
>> robust protocol for interfacing to printers (and I mean the real hardware
>> not some logical abstraction) then that will suit me fine. Lets start a new
>> track and call it, say, NLS (Not LPD and SNMP). This is what I initially
>> wanted to do but could not persuade enough people.
>
>in my opinion, it should be based on the set of attributes defined for IPP
>and the resulting device protocol should be as closely correlated with IPP
>as possible such that the mapping is very straight forward and simple.
>
>Harry Lewis
>
>