Subject: RE: IPP> host-to-device ...

From: "Wagner, William" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:41:22 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Philip Thambidurai [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> 
> 
> I don't think that people are ranting about IPP not being able to
> address   intranets.  
> 
	[Wagner, William]  I certainly got the impression that some were
suggesting that IPP was inappropriate for intranets. Others suggest that
it is inadequate for Internets. And others, such as Phillip, observe
that IPP is not the one ultimate protocol.  Perhaps all are correct. And
I agree that a be-all do-all protocol is not feasible (and indeed, it
was never the objective of IPP).

	As to supporting multiple protocols, take a look at what we have
today. TCP sockets (at various port numbers) , LPD (of various flavors),
Apple PAP, DLC, NetBeui, NetWare Print Server, NetWare NPrinter, NetWare
NDPS (all at various frame types), FTP and Telnet. Add JetSend,
Salutation, EMail printing (POP3), HTTP and SNMP (the last two for
management) etc. Hey, whats wrong with adding a couple more?
W. A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
OSICOM/DPI

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:03:52 -0500

Bill,

You wrote on the "host-to-device thread":

> As to supporting multiple protocols, take a look at what we have today.
>
> [...]
>
> Hey, whats wrong with adding a couple more?

You didn't tack on a "smiley face" on the end of that last
sentence, so I don't know if you were joking or being serious.

Either way, your comments point out yet another concern that
Paul Moore and I share regarding concerns about IPP.  And in
many respects, this may be the *biggest* overall concern we
have.

That concern has to do with the fact that many printer vendors
appear to be leaning toward the decision that "IPP is the *last*
printing protocol we will implement in our printers".

I say printer vendors "appear" to be saying that because explicit
statements to that effect have not been posted on the IPP DL.
Instead, they have been made to individuals on a private (yet
not *confidential*) basis.

And this is where I have BIG problems with moving forward
with IPP as some folks would prefer.  And I know Paul Moore
shares this view (and has stated this *repeatedly* on the DL).

The strong proponents for IPP have stated their intentions to
move IPP to the "next level"...over HTTP.  And this is specifically
another problem some of us have with IPP today.

If printer vendors want to implement IPP to satisfy the 0.01%
of customer demand for "Internet Printing" (aka, Kinko's,
quasi-Internet Fax, etc), then ok, go for it.

Just don't come back and say:

  "Now that we can print to Kinko's, let's 'extend' IPP
   to include all the other capabilities needed by the
   driver folks to efficiently drive network printers
   in the intranet environment."

Perhaps you now understand our concerns in this area?

	...jay

PS: I fully expect Randy Turner to (quite reasonably) come back
    with a response to the effect of "let's talk about IPP on
    a different transport", and that's great.  We need to talk
    this out.  I just didn't want to go down that path in this msg.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--  JK Martin               |  Email:   [email-masked]          --
--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              --
--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              --
--  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------