>Maybe I've allowed myself to become too hopeful regarding our IPP mode=
l
>I view this as an abstract set of print operations and attributes whic=
h
>can be mapped to nearly any transport protocol, the first being HTTP -=
thus
>making this the Internet Printing Protocol. I expected future mappings=
,
>to TCP/IP for example, and had hoped that printing would begin to look=
and
>feel quite similar throughout the distributed environment. Peer-to-Pee=
r may
>be a different story, as you point out.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
-- Forwarded by Harry Lewis--
ipp-owner@pwg.org on 04/06/98 03:26:43 PM
Please respond to ipp-owner@pwg.org
To: paulmo@microsoft.com
cc: ipp@pwg.org, rturner@sharplabs.com, don@lexmark.com,
CGordon@wal.osicom.com, Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM@ibmus
Subject: RE: IPP> Host to device
In reverse order...
>I do not see anybody trying to LIMIT IPP. All I see are people (includ=
ing
>me) pointing out its limitations - this is not the same thing at all.
Agree. Poor phrasing on my part. Your list of limitations has formed an=
especially good basis for discussing enhancements.
>I meant 'odd' in a very specific way. IPP is INTERNET Printing Protoco=
l - USB
>is not normally considered as an Internet transport. The Internet is,=
after
>all, a TCP/IP network.
Maybe I've allowed myself to become too hopeful regarding our IPP model=
=