Subject: IPP> 1284.3 and 1284.4

From: Ravi S <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 15:31:46 +0530

How do I get the specs for 1284.3 and 1284.4? Is a draft for these
available on the Web?

Best Regards, Ravi

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ravi Subramanian                |         Email: [email-masked] |
| Texas Instruments Inc                                              |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

----- Begin Included Message -----

>From [email-masked] Thu May  7 05:21:37 1998
From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: SDP, IPP>PRO Proposal for TIPSI-like protocol
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 19:52:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: [email-masked]

One thing it would buy is a simpler (than 1284.4) way to flow IPP over =
bidi
parallel - no? Isn't this basically what Lexmark has found? I'm confuse=
d why
TIPSI has a packet structure, Lexmark was shipping it on parallel and t=
hen .4
was invented - maybe some background could help (I always thought it wa=
s to
flow SNMP over parallel ;-). If it's true that the .1 packet is only st=
ill
there for legacy I might buy Bob's argument. But I suspect .4 is a much=
 more
complex implementation.

Bob, doesn't your proposal say we would have to invent a transport (if =
not
already there) to "IPize" every physical layer (ex. serial)?

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

[email-masked] on 05/06/98 05:32:34 PM
Please respond to [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
cc: [email-masked]
Subject: SDP,  IPP>PRO Proposal for TIPSI-like protocol

I just finished scanning IEEE 1284.3 and IEEE1284.4.  The most interest=
ing
part is Chapter 8 "Service Provider Interface (SPI)" in IEEE 1284.4.  T=
his
chapter describes a "Berkeley Sockets-compatible interface for clients =
and
servers to access the services provided by 1284.4".

So if I understand the intent of 1284.4, it is to provide a layer that
supports sockets over parallel connections. All we need to do in IPP is=

reference sockets for TCP/IP and 1284.4 and we don't have to worry abou=
t the
issues at that layer.

So, I conclude that we don't need to packetize IPP or do much of what i=
s
proposed in Roger and Harry's paper. Instead, we can send IPP directly =
on
sockets layered on top of TCP/IP or 1284.4.  There are a few easy-to-so=
lve
dangling
issues, such as chunking for document data and intermediate acknowledge=
ment
when attributes are verified for PrintJob. But otherwise IPP stays as i=
s.

If you disagree with my conclusions, I would like to know what the
TIPSI-like packetizing layer provides that sockets don't also provide?

Bob Herriot

=

----- End Included Message -----