From pwg-announce-owner@pwg.org Tue Jul 1 15:33:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A67C3A6C03; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:33:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.209 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.319, BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gEY-oTP5gRh4; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:33:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FEA83A6CEC; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:32:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m61MWan2006385; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:32:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m61MWY5j006382; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:32:36 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:30:28 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m61MUO4i005774 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:30:26 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m61MUOHJ005771 for pwg-announce-out; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:30:24 -0400 To: pwg-announce@pwg.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Fw: PWG-ANNOUNCE> PWG Formal Approval begins for MFD Scan Requirements X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 Message-ID: From: Harry Lewis Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:30:17 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM132/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2FP2HF300 | September 14, 2007) at 07/01/2008 16:30:18, Serialize complete at 07/01/2008 16:30:18 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="=_related 007BA04387257479_=" Sender: owner-pwg-announce@pwg.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_related 007BA04387257479_= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 007BA04387257479_=" --=_alternative 007BA04387257479_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 VGhpcyBpcyBhIHJlbWluZGVyIHRoYXQgdm90aW5nIGVuZHMgRnJpZGF5IEp1bHkgMTEuIFBsZWFz ZSB0YWtlIGEgZmV3IA0KbWludXRlcyBhbmQgY2FzdCB5b3VyIHZvdGUgKGluc3RydWN0aW9ucyBi ZWxvdykuIElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIGFscmVhZHkgDQp2b3RlZCwgdGhhbmsgeW91IHZlcnkgbXVjaCEN Cg0KUmVnYXJkcywNCkhhcnJ5DQoNCkhhcnJ5IExld2lzDQpQcm9ncmFtIE1hbmFnZXIgLSBJbnRl bGxlY3R1YWwgUHJvcGVydHkgJiBPcGVuIFN0YW5kYXJkcw0KUGhvbmU6IDMwMy05MjQtNTMzNw0K ZS1tYWlsOiBoYXJyeWxAdXMuaWJtLmNvbQ0KaW5mb3ByaW50LmNvbQ0KDQoNClAgVGhpbmsgYmVm b3JlIHlvdSBwcmludCANCi0tLS0tIEZvcndhcmRlZCBieSBIYXJyeSBMZXdpcy9VUy9JbmZvUHJp bnQvSURFIG9uIDA3LzAxLzIwMDggMDQ6MjggUE0gDQotLS0tLQ0KDQpIYXJyeSBMZXdpcy9VUy9J bmZvUHJpbnQvSURFQElCTVVTIA0KU2VudCBieTogb3duZXItcHdnLWFubm91bmNlQHB3Zy5vcmcN CjA2LzEzLzIwMDggMTE6MzUgQU0NCg0KVG8NCnB3Zy1hbm5vdW5jZUBwd2cub3JnDQpjYw0KDQpT dWJqZWN0DQpQV0ctQU5OT1VOQ0U+IFBXRyBGb3JtYWwgQXBwcm92YWwgYmVnaW5zIGZvciBNRkQg U2NhbiBSZXF1aXJlbWVudHMNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KUFdHIEZvcm1hbCBBcHByb3ZhbCBjb21t ZW5jZW1lbnQgZm9yIE1GRCBTY2FuIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyDigJMgVm90aW5nIGVuZHMgDQpGcmlk YXkgSnVseSAxMSwgMjAwOCANCk9uIEp1bmUgMTksIDIwMDggdGhlIFBXRyBTdGVlcmluZyBDb21t aXR0ZWUgYXBwcm92ZWQgTUZEIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgDQpMYXN0IENhbGwgZXhpdCBmb3IgdGhl IE5ldHdvcmsgU2NhbiBTZXJ2aWNlIFVzZSBDYXNlIGFuZCBSZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgDQpkb2N1bWVu dC4gT3VyIHByb2Nlc3MgcmVxdWlyZXMgdGhhdCByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgYmUgdHJlYXRlZCBhcyBh IGZvcm1hbCANCmRvY3VtZW50IHRvIGFzc3VyZSB0aGF0IHdlIGhhdmUgd2lkZXNwcmVhZCBhZ3Jl ZW1lbnQgb24gdGhlIGRpcmVjdGlvbiBvZiBhIA0KbmV3IHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgZWZmb3J0LiBB dCB0aGUgcmVxdWVzdCBvZiB0aGUgTUZEIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgDQpDaGFpcm1hbiwgUGV0ZXIg WmVobGVyIOKAkyBYZXJveCwgYW5kIGFjY29yZGluZyB0byBteSBkdXRpZXMgYXMgU2VjcmV0YXJ5 IG9mIA0KdGhlIFBXRywgSSBoZXJlYnkgaW5pdGlhdGUgRm9ybWFsIEFwcHJvdmFsIGJ5IHZvdGUg b2YgdGhlIFBXRyBtZW1iZXJzaGlwLiANClRoZSB2b3RpbmcgcGVyaW9kIHdpbGwgb3BlbiBvbiBN b25kYXkgSnVuZSAxNiBhbmQgY2xvc2UgYXQgMTBQTSAoUGFjaWZpYyANClRpbWUpIG9uIEZyaWRh eSBKdWx5IDExLCAyMDA4LiANClZhbGlkIHZvdGVzIGFyZTogWWVzLCBObywgTm8gKHdpdGggc3Ry b25nIG9iamVjdGlvbiksIEFic3RhaW4uIA0KQW55IE5vIHZvdGUgcmVxdWlyZXMgdGhhdCB0aGUg dm90ZXIgc3RhdGUgdGhlIHJlYXNvbiBmb3IgdGhlIE5vIHZvdGUgYW5kIGEgDQpkZXNjcmlwdGlv biBvZiB0aGUgY2hhbmdlcyByZXF1aXJlZCBmb3IgdHVybmluZyB0aGUgTm8gdm90ZSB0byBhIFll cy4gDQpSZXByZXNlbnRhdGl2ZXMgZnJvbSBQV0cgbWVtYmVyIGNvbXBhbmllcyBhcmUgc3Ryb25n bHkgZW5jb3VyYWdlZCB0byANCnN1Ym1pdCBhIHZvdGUuIA0KVG8gY2FzdCBhIHZvdGUsIHBsZWFz ZSBzZW5kIGFuIGVtYWlsIHdpdGggdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBzdWJqZWN0IGxpbmUgDQpmb3JtYXQ6 IA0KIk1GRCBTY2FuIFJlcSBGb3JtYWwgVm90ZS08Y29tcGFueSBuYW1lPi08bGFzdCBuYW1lIG9m IA0Kdm90ZXI+LTx5ZXMvbm8vYWJzdGFpbj4iIA0KRXhhbXBsZTogTUZEIFNjYW4gUmVxIEZvcm1h bCBWb3RlLUluZm9QcmludC1sZXdpcy15ZXMgDQpObyB2b3RlcyBNVVNUIGNvbnRhaW4gYSByZWFz b24gaW4gdGhlIGJvZHkgb2YgdGhlIGVtYWlsLiANClBsZWFzZSBzZW5kIHlvdXIgdm90ZSB0byB0 aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGVtYWlsIGFkZHJlc3NlczogDQooUmVwbGFjaW5nICJkb3QiIHdpdGggLiBh bmQgImF0IiB3aXRoIEApOiANCnRocmFzaGVyImF0ImxleG1hcmsiZG90ImNvbSANCnBldGVyImRv dCJ6ZWhsZXIiYXQieGVyb3giZG90ImNvbSANCmhhcnJ5bCJhdCJ1cyJkb3QiaWJtImRvdCJjb20g DQpSRUZFUkVOQ0UgTUFURVJJQUwgDQpUaGUgTGFzdCBDYWxsIHZlcnNpb24gb2YgdGhlIFJlcXVp cmVtZW50cyBEb2N1bWVudCAoLmRvYywgYW5kIOKAk3Jldi5wZGYvZG9jIA0KYXJlIGFsc28gYXZh aWxhYmxlKTogDQo8ZnRwOi8vZnRwLnB3Zy5vcmcvcHViL3B3Zy9tZmQvd2QvbGNyYy1tZmRzY2Fu cmVxMTAtMjAwODAzMjQucGRmPiAgIA0KVGhlIHJlc29sdXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIExhc3QgQ2FsbCBj b21tZW50cyAoLmRvYywgYW5kIOKAk3Jldi5wZGYvZG9jIGFyZSBhbHNvIA0KYXZhaWxhYmxlKTog DQo8ZnRwOi8vZnRwLnB3Zy5vcmcvcHViL3B3Zy9tZmQvd2QvU2Nhbi1SZXEtTEMtQ29tbWVudHMt MDQxNzA4LnBkZj4gDQoNClJlZ2FyZHMsIA0KSGFycnkgTGV3aXMgLSBQV0cgU2VjcmV0YXJ5DQoN CkhhcnJ5IExld2lzDQpQcm9ncmFtIE1hbmFnZXIgLSBJbnRlbGxlY3R1YWwgUHJvcGVydHkgJiBP cGVuIFN0YW5kYXJkcw0KUGhvbmU6IDMwMy05MjQtNTMzNw0KZS1tYWlsOiBoYXJyeWxAdXMuaWJt LmNvbQ0KaW5mb3ByaW50LmNvbQ0KDQoNClAgVGhpbmsgYmVmb3JlIHlvdSBwcmludCANCg== --=_alternative 007BA04387257479_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPlRoaXMgaXMgYSByZW1pbmRlciB0 aGF0IHZvdGluZyBlbmRzDQpGcmlkYXkgSnVseSAxMS4gUGxlYXNlIHRha2UgYSBmZXcgbWludXRl cyBhbmQgY2FzdCB5b3VyIHZvdGUgKGluc3RydWN0aW9ucw0KYmVsb3cpLiBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSBh bHJlYWR5IHZvdGVkLCB0aGFuayB5b3UgdmVyeSBtdWNoITwvZm9udD4NCjxicj4NCjxicj48Zm9u dCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+UmVnYXJkcyw8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6 ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkhhcnJ5PGJyPg0KPC9mb250Pjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBmYWNl PSJBcmlhbCI+PGI+PGJyPg0KSGFycnkgTGV3aXM8L2I+PC9mb250Pjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBjb2xv cj0jODA4MDgwIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsIj48YnI+DQpQcm9ncmFtIE1hbmFnZXIgLSBJbnRlbGxlY3R1 YWwgUHJvcGVydHkgJmFtcDsgT3BlbiBTdGFuZGFyZHM8YnI+DQpQaG9uZTogMzAzLTkyNC01MzM3 PGJyPg0KZS1tYWlsOiBoYXJyeWxAdXMuaWJtLmNvbTwvZm9udD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgY29sb3I9 Ymx1ZSBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+PGJyPg0KPC9mb250PjxhIGhyZWY9aHR0cDovL3d3dy5pbmZvcHJp bnQuY29tLz48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgY29sb3I9Ymx1ZSBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+aW5mb3ByaW50LmNv bTwvZm9udD48L2E+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0zPjxicj4NCjxicj4NCjwvZm9udD48aW1nIHNyYz1jaWQ6 XzFfMDhGODg2QzQwOTQxRjVFNDAwN0I5RjZEODcyNTc0Nzk+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0zIGNvbG9yPSMz ZjYyMWYgZmFjZT0iV2ViZGluZ3MiPjxicj4NClA8L2ZvbnQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0zPiA8L2ZvbnQ+ PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGNvbG9yPSMzZjYyMWYgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwiPlRoaW5rDQpiZWZvcmUgeW91 IHByaW50PC9mb250Pjxmb250IHNpemU9Mz4gPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBjb2xv cj0jODAwMDgwIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPi0tLS0tIEZvcndhcmRlZCBieSBIYXJyeQ0KTGV3 aXMvVVMvSW5mb1ByaW50L0lERSBvbiAwNy8wMS8yMDA4IDA0OjI4IFBNIC0tLS0tPC9mb250Pg0K PGJyPg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPTEwMCU+DQo8dHIgdmFsaWduPXRvcD4NCjx0ZCB3aWR0aD00MCU+ PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPjxiPkhhcnJ5IExld2lzL1VTL0luZm9Qcmlu dC9JREVASUJNVVM8L2I+DQo8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2Vy aWYiPlNlbnQgYnk6IG93bmVyLXB3Zy1hbm5vdW5jZUBwd2cub3JnPC9mb250Pg0KPHA+PGZvbnQg c2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPjA2LzEzLzIwMDggMTE6MzUgQU08L2ZvbnQ+DQo8dGQg d2lkdGg9NTklPg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPTEwMCU+DQo8dHIgdmFsaWduPXRvcD4NCjx0ZD4NCjxk aXYgYWxpZ249cmlnaHQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPlRvPC9mb250Pjwv ZGl2Pg0KPHRkPjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5wd2ctYW5ub3VuY2VAcHdn Lm9yZzwvZm9udD4NCjx0ciB2YWxpZ249dG9wPg0KPHRkPg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj1yaWdodD48Zm9u dCBzaXplPTEgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+Y2M8L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+DQo8dGQ+DQo8dHIgdmFs aWduPXRvcD4NCjx0ZD4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249cmlnaHQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNhbnMt c2VyaWYiPlN1YmplY3Q8L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+DQo8dGQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNhbnMt c2VyaWYiPlBXRy1BTk5PVU5DRSZndDsgUFdHIEZvcm1hbCBBcHByb3ZhbA0KYmVnaW5zIGZvciBN RkQgU2NhbiBSZXF1aXJlbWVudHM8L2ZvbnQ+PC90YWJsZT4NCjxicj4NCjx0YWJsZT4NCjx0ciB2 YWxpZ249dG9wPg0KPHRkPg0KPHRkPjwvdGFibGU+DQo8YnI+PC90YWJsZT4NCjxicj4NCjxicj4N Cjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTMgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PGI+PGJyPg0KUFdHIEZvcm1hbCBB cHByb3ZhbCBjb21tZW5jZW1lbnQgZm9yIE1GRCBTY2FuIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyDigJMgVm90aW5n IGVuZHMNCkZyaWRheSBKdWx5IDExLCAyMDA4PC9iPjwvZm9udD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTM+IDwvZm9u dD4NCjxwPjxmb250IHNpemU9MyBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5PbiBKdW5lIDE5LCAyMDA4IHRo ZSBQV0cgU3RlZXJpbmcgQ29tbWl0dGVlDQphcHByb3ZlZCBNRkQgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBMYXN0 IENhbGwgZXhpdCBmb3IgdGhlIDxiPk5ldHdvcmsgU2NhbiBTZXJ2aWNlDQpVc2UgQ2FzZSBhbmQg UmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzPC9iPiBkb2N1bWVudC4gT3VyIHByb2Nlc3MgcmVxdWlyZXMgdGhhdCByZXF1 aXJlbWVudHMNCmJlIHRyZWF0ZWQgYXMgYSBmb3JtYWwgZG9jdW1lbnQgdG8gYXNzdXJlIHRoYXQg d2UgaGF2ZSB3aWRlc3ByZWFkIGFncmVlbWVudA0Kb24gdGhlIGRpcmVjdGlvbiBvZiBhIG5ldyB3 b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGVmZm9ydC4gQXQgdGhlIHJlcXVlc3Qgb2YgdGhlIE1GRA0Kd29ya2luZyBn cm91cCBDaGFpcm1hbiwgUGV0ZXIgWmVobGVyIOKAkyBYZXJveCwgYW5kIGFjY29yZGluZyB0byBt eSBkdXRpZXMNCmFzIFNlY3JldGFyeSBvZiB0aGUgUFdHLCBJIGhlcmVieSBpbml0aWF0ZSBGb3Jt YWwgQXBwcm92YWwgYnkgdm90ZSBvZiB0aGUNClBXRyBtZW1iZXJzaGlwLiBUaGUgdm90aW5nIHBl cmlvZCB3aWxsIG9wZW4gb24gTW9uZGF5IEp1bmUgMTYgYW5kIGNsb3NlDQphdCAxMFBNIChQYWNp ZmljIFRpbWUpIG9uIEZyaWRheSBKdWx5IDExLCAyMDA4LiA8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXpl PTMgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PGI+VmFsaWQgdm90ZXMgYXJlOiBZZXMsIE5vLCBObyAod2l0 aA0Kc3Ryb25nIG9iamVjdGlvbiksIEFic3RhaW4uIDwvYj48L2ZvbnQ+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXpl PTMgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+QW55IE5vIHZvdGUgcmVxdWlyZXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgdm90ZXIg c3RhdGUNCnRoZSByZWFzb24gZm9yIHRoZSBObyB2b3RlIGFuZCBhIGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIG9mIHRo ZSBjaGFuZ2VzIHJlcXVpcmVkIGZvcg0KdHVybmluZyB0aGUgTm8gdm90ZSB0byBhIFllcy4gPC9m b250Pg0KPHA+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0zIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPlJlcHJlc2VudGF0aXZlcyBm cm9tIFBXRyBtZW1iZXIgY29tcGFuaWVzDQphcmUgc3Ryb25nbHkgZW5jb3VyYWdlZCB0byBzdWJt aXQgYSB2b3RlLiA8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTMgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+VG8g Y2FzdCBhIHZvdGUsIHBsZWFzZSBzZW5kIGFuIGVtYWlsDQp3aXRoIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgc3Vi amVjdCBsaW5lIGZvcm1hdDogPC9mb250Pg0KPHA+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0zIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2Vy aWYiPiZxdW90O01GRCBTY2FuIFJlcSBGb3JtYWwgVm90ZS0mbHQ7Y29tcGFueQ0KbmFtZSZndDst Jmx0O2xhc3QgbmFtZSBvZiB2b3RlciZndDstJmx0O3llcy9uby9hYnN0YWluJmd0OyZxdW90OyA8 L2ZvbnQ+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTMgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PGI+RXhhbXBsZTogTUZE IFNjYW4gUmVxIEZvcm1hbCBWb3RlLUluZm9QcmludC1sZXdpcy15ZXMNCjwvYj48L2ZvbnQ+DQo8 cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTMgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+Tm8gdm90ZXMgTVVTVCBjb250YWluIGEg cmVhc29uIGluIHRoZQ0KYm9keSBvZiB0aGUgZW1haWwuIDwvZm9udD4NCjxwPjxmb250IHNpemU9 MyBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5QbGVhc2Ugc2VuZCB5b3VyIHZvdGUgdG8gdGhlIGZvbGxvd2lu Zw0KZW1haWwgYWRkcmVzc2VzOiA8YnI+DQooUmVwbGFjaW5nICZxdW90O2RvdCZxdW90OyB3aXRo IC4gYW5kICZxdW90O2F0JnF1b3Q7IHdpdGggQCk6IDwvZm9udD4NCjxwPjxmb250IHNpemU9MyBm YWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48Yj50aHJhc2hlciZxdW90O2F0JnF1b3Q7bGV4bWFyayZxdW90O2Rv dCZxdW90O2NvbQ0KPGJyPg0KcGV0ZXImcXVvdDtkb3QmcXVvdDt6ZWhsZXImcXVvdDthdCZxdW90 O3hlcm94JnF1b3Q7ZG90JnF1b3Q7Y29tIDxicj4NCmhhcnJ5bCZxdW90O2F0JnF1b3Q7dXMmcXVv dDtkb3QmcXVvdDtpYm0mcXVvdDtkb3QmcXVvdDtjb20gPC9iPjwvZm9udD4NCjxwPjxmb250IHNp emU9MyBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48Yj5SRUZFUkVOQ0UgTUFURVJJQUw8L2I+PC9mb250Pjxm b250IHNpemU9Mz4NCjwvZm9udD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTMgZmFjZT0iVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIj48 YnI+DQpUaGUgTGFzdCBDYWxsIHZlcnNpb24gb2YgdGhlIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBEb2N1bWVudCAo LmRvYywgYW5kIDwvZm9udD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTMgZmFjZT0iVGFob21hIj7igJM8L2ZvbnQ+PGZv bnQgc2l6ZT0zIGZhY2U9IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiI+cmV2LnBkZi9kb2MNCmFyZSBhbHNvIGF2 YWlsYWJsZSk6IDxicj4NCiZsdDs8L2ZvbnQ+PGEgaHJlZj0iZnRwOi8vZnRwLnB3Zy5vcmcvcHVi L3B3Zy9tZmQvd2QvbGNyYy1tZmRzY2FucmVxMTAtMjAwODAzMjQucGRmIj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTMg Y29sb3I9Ymx1ZSBmYWNlPSJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iPjx1PmZ0cDovL2Z0cC5wd2cub3JnL3B1 Yi9wd2cvbWZkL3dkL2xjcmMtbWZkc2NhbnJlcTEwLTIwMDgwMzI0LnBkZjwvdT48L2ZvbnQ+PC9h Pjxmb250IHNpemU9MyBmYWNlPSJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iPiZndDsNCiZuYnNwOzwvZm9udD48 Zm9udCBzaXplPTM+IDwvZm9udD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTMgZmFjZT0iVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIj48 YnI+DQpUaGUgcmVzb2x1dGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgTGFzdCBDYWxsIGNvbW1lbnRzICguZG9jLCBhbmQg PC9mb250Pjxmb250IHNpemU9MyBmYWNlPSJUYWhvbWEiPuKAkzwvZm9udD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTMg ZmFjZT0iVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIj5yZXYucGRmL2RvYw0KYXJlIGFsc28gYXZhaWxhYmxlKTog PGJyPg0KJmx0OzwvZm9udD48YSBocmVmPSJmdHA6Ly9mdHAucHdnLm9yZy9wdWIvcHdnL21mZC93 ZC9TY2FuLVJlcS1MQy1Db21tZW50cy0wNDE3MDgucGRmIj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTMgY29sb3I9Ymx1 ZSBmYWNlPSJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iPjx1PmZ0cDovL2Z0cC5wd2cub3JnL3B1Yi9wd2cvbWZk L3dkL1NjYW4tUmVxLUxDLUNvbW1lbnRzLTA0MTcwOC5wZGY8L3U+PC9mb250PjwvYT48Zm9udCBz aXplPTMgZmFjZT0iVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIj4mZ3Q7DQo8L2ZvbnQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0zPjxi cj4NCjwvZm9udD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PGJyPg0KUmVnYXJkcyw8 L2ZvbnQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0zPiA8L2ZvbnQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYi Pjxicj4NCkhhcnJ5IExld2lzIC0gUFdHIFNlY3JldGFyeTwvZm9udD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgZmFj ZT0iQXJpYWwiPjxiPjxicj4NCjxicj4NCkhhcnJ5IExld2lzPC9iPjwvZm9udD48Zm9udCBzaXpl PTEgY29sb3I9IzgwODA4MCBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+PGJyPg0KUHJvZ3JhbSBNYW5hZ2VyIC0gSW50 ZWxsZWN0dWFsIFByb3BlcnR5ICZhbXA7IE9wZW4gU3RhbmRhcmRzPGJyPg0KUGhvbmU6IDMwMy05 MjQtNTMzNzxicj4NCmUtbWFpbDogaGFycnlsQHVzLmlibS5jb208L2ZvbnQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0z IGNvbG9yPWJsdWU+PHU+PGJyPg0KPC91PjwvZm9udD48YSBocmVmPWh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaW5mb3By aW50LmNvbS8+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGNvbG9yPWJsdWUgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwiPjx1PmluZm9wcmlu dC5jb208L3U+PC9mb250PjwvYT48Zm9udCBzaXplPTM+PGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPC9mb250PjxpbWcg c3JjPWNpZDpfMV8wOTQxQzBCQzA5NDFCMjc0MDA3QjlGNkQ4NzI1NzQ3OT48Zm9udCBzaXplPTMg Y29sb3I9IzNmNjIxZiBmYWNlPSJXZWJkaW5ncyI+PGJyPg0KUDwvZm9udD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTM+ IDwvZm9udD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgY29sb3I9IzNmNjIxZiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+VGhpbmsNCmJl Zm9yZSB5b3UgcHJpbnQ8L2ZvbnQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0zPiA8L2ZvbnQ+DQo= --=_alternative 007BA04387257479_=-- --=_related 007BA04387257479_= Content-Type: image/gif Content-ID: <_1_08F886C40941F5E4007B9F6D87257479> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 R0lGODlhWgAaALMAAPnJypu06PFvdGOK3MHQ8PWrrfOJjO9JT7m5ufbn5XGT3lR+2OwcJAAAAP// /wAAACH5BAAAAAAALAAAAABaABoAAAT/0MlJq704a9m210AoAl8iJpUZot/VVYFCOLFi27NUB9PO /EBgQSL4HSaGQ5BxICWUwcNQAiRRf5YXRbGYBRbgcFfCXSgmZQXwYDAUf6T30fFmCO6HYwF4rwuu DFYOQFkWXF4LPDpmZAsDCxOOZoQTbwZ0Rg57cCwsQAYoCZuBg3ATlBRaaGNfig4EjA5ch69mk1gO olWYTA5QlxWjLLm/CWt5UAyFFbRfCgHQjzlcrTSJtwwGS8Byvj/AFKMV3UtLy1usYmHTXYwKA7Bq WNpMgt1QfxUAQMPe2aXZCghENUFVI0QyCBD4AklWFy4OzMSjRI/BlG4Vp0hI8ORHPk27+3YBOrcK kSuHMw61SjQRl4OMvI4kqMNGgBJdRtwIySUSIMmD1lwlkIYyXpeWyjZWBNAtV4FkHgGYqGNEY0+C HAylG3ADzBmUEcHU+tqCAscV/Tiq6Fc2K7N06sjSmjW2rd27P/Hq3cvXbd+/gAMLHky4sOHDiBMr Xsy4sEEEqhpIRpCqghbIBjP71YA5cIfJDjpApvzis+jQDRB0Dj1hNOvPnSm7Bg3Z7+zUqVFTDk06 t+nXvD+j9p1V+GXixoEDT66l+fLnpJ9Llq7cLXPL1IVnt15we+nko6/Prgz9u2zirmuLRs5bQmz2 pkmrZx06R2PFBl3cZ5wfu4MIADs= --=_related 007BA04387257479_= Content-Type: image/gif Content-ID: <_1_0941C0BC0941B274007B9F6D87257479> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 R0lGODlhWgAaALMAAPnJypu06PFvdGOK3MHQ8PWrrfOJjO9JT7m5ufbn5XGT3lR+2OwcJAAAAP// /wAAACH5BAAAAAAALAAAAABaABoAAAT/0MlJq704a9m210AoAl8iJpUZot/VVYFCOLFi27NUB9PO /EBgQSL4HSaGQ5BxICWUwcNQAiRRf5YXRbGYBRbgcFfCXSgmZQXwYDAUf6T30fFmCO6HYwF4rwuu DFYOQFkWXF4LPDpmZAsDCxOOZoQTbwZ0Rg57cCwsQAYoCZuBg3ATlBRaaGNfig4EjA5ch69mk1gO olWYTA5QlxWjLLm/CWt5UAyFFbRfCgHQjzlcrTSJtwwGS8Byvj/AFKMV3UtLy1usYmHTXYwKA7Bq WNpMgt1QfxUAQMPe2aXZCghENUFVI0QyCBD4AklWFy4OzMSjRI/BlG4Vp0hI8ORHPk27+3YBOrcK kSuHMw61SjQRl4OMvI4kqMNGgBJdRtwIySUSIMmD1lwlkIYyXpeWyjZWBNAtV4FkHgGYqGNEY0+C HAylG3ADzBmUEcHU+tqCAscV/Tiq6Fc2K7N06sjSmjW2rd27P/Hq3cvXbd+/gAMLHky4sOHDiBMr Xsy4sEEEqhpIRpCqghbIBjP71YA5cIfJDjpApvzis+jQDRB0Dj1hNOvPnSm7Bg3Z7+zUqVFTDk06 t+nXvD+j9p1V+GXixoEDT66l+fLnpJ9Llq7cLXPL1IVnt15we+nko6/Prgz9u2zirmuLRs5bQmz2 pkmrZx06R2PFBl3cZ5wfu4MIADs= --=_related 007BA04387257479_=-- From pwg-announce-owner@pwg.org Wed Jul 2 12:19:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 077A63A68F4; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:19:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C3LhiXo1N52Q; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:19:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03EF23A6767; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m62JJaj5001402; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:19:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m62JJXui001399; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:19:36 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:17:37 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m62JHWut000936 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:17:34 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m62JHWOI000933 for pwg-announce-out; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:17:32 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8DC78.3FC1BACA" Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Meeting locations for 2009 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:17:20 -0700 Message-ID: <02954887D466F24D9F3FC9F47466DEF00A880E08@cdaexchange.sc.rd.canon.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Meeting locations for 2009 Thread-Index: AcjceD+xIi5fYGzjS7+Jne5LMB8WXg== From: "Farrell, Lee" To: Sender: owner-pwg-announce@pwg.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8DC78.3FC1BACA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello everyone, It has been claimed that we cannot begin the planning for next year's face-to-face meetings too early. As an initial step, I would like any and all members that believe their company could host a meeting in 2009 to respond to me by submitting at least the following information: Hosting Company, Possible Location(s) for Hosting [i.e., cities], Best Timeframe(s) [i.e., months or seasons], Percent Likelihood At this point, I think we can assume that the hosting requirements will probably limited to 2-3 days of the week, with 15 attendees on average. Of course, these numbers might change in the future, depending on specific activity and levels of participation. Please note that none of the responses will signify a commitment at this time. I am only trying to see what kind of options we might have for establishing a meeting schedule for next year. Thanks in advance, Lee Farrell PWG Vice Chair =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Canon Development Americas 15975 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618-3731 (949) 932-3163 - voice (949) 932-3520 - fax lee.farrell@cda.canon.com =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8DC78.3FC1BACA Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Meeting locations for 2009

Hello everyone,

It has been claimed that we cannot = begin the planning for next year's face-to-face meetings too = early.

As an initial step, I would like any = and all members that believe their company could host a meeting in 2009 = to respond to me by submitting at least the following = information:

Hosting Company, Possible Location(s) = for Hosting [i.e., cities], Best Timeframe(s) [i.e., months or seasons], = Percent Likelihood

At this point, I think we can assume = that the hosting requirements will probably limited to 2-3 days of the = week, with 15 attendees on average.  Of course, these numbers might = change in the future, depending on specific activity and levels of = participation.

Please note that none of the responses = will signify a commitment at this time.  I am only trying to see = what kind of options we might have for establishing a meeting schedule = for next year.



Thanks in advance,

Lee  Farrell
PWG Vice Chair
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D
Canon Development = Americas
15975 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618-3731
(949) 932-3163 - voice
(949) 932-3520 - fax
lee.farrell@cda.canon.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D

------_=_NextPart_001_01C8DC78.3FC1BACA-- From pwg-announce-owner@pwg.org Wed Jul 2 13:32:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0463A6980; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:32:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.854 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.744, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xe5QjwT80MSW; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:32:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90D73A695C; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m62KWfi6016235; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:32:43 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m62KWdOv016229; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:32:41 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:30:51 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m62JHWut000936 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:17:34 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m62JHWOI000933 for pwg-announce-out; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:17:32 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8DC78.3FC1BACA" Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Meeting locations for 2009 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:17:20 -0700 Message-ID: <02954887D466F24D9F3FC9F47466DEF00A880E08@cdaexchange.sc.rd.canon.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Meeting locations for 2009 Thread-Index: AcjceD+xIi5fYGzjS7+Jne5LMB8WXg== From: "Farrell, Lee" To: Sender: owner-pwg-announce@pwg.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8DC78.3FC1BACA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello everyone, It has been claimed that we cannot begin the planning for next year's face-to-face meetings too early. As an initial step, I would like any and all members that believe their company could host a meeting in 2009 to respond to me by submitting at least the following information: Hosting Company, Possible Location(s) for Hosting [i.e., cities], Best Timeframe(s) [i.e., months or seasons], Percent Likelihood At this point, I think we can assume that the hosting requirements will probably limited to 2-3 days of the week, with 15 attendees on average. Of course, these numbers might change in the future, depending on specific activity and levels of participation. Please note that none of the responses will signify a commitment at this time. I am only trying to see what kind of options we might have for establishing a meeting schedule for next year. Thanks in advance, Lee Farrell PWG Vice Chair =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Canon Development Americas 15975 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618-3731 (949) 932-3163 - voice (949) 932-3520 - fax lee.farrell@cda.canon.com =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8DC78.3FC1BACA Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Meeting locations for 2009

Hello everyone,

It has been claimed that we cannot = begin the planning for next year's face-to-face meetings too = early.

As an initial step, I would like any = and all members that believe their company could host a meeting in 2009 = to respond to me by submitting at least the following = information:

Hosting Company, Possible Location(s) = for Hosting [i.e., cities], Best Timeframe(s) [i.e., months or seasons], = Percent Likelihood

At this point, I think we can assume = that the hosting requirements will probably limited to 2-3 days of the = week, with 15 attendees on average.  Of course, these numbers might = change in the future, depending on specific activity and levels of = participation.

Please note that none of the responses = will signify a commitment at this time.  I am only trying to see = what kind of options we might have for establishing a meeting schedule = for next year.



Thanks in advance,

Lee  Farrell
PWG Vice Chair
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D
Canon Development = Americas
15975 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618-3731
(949) 932-3163 - voice
(949) 932-3520 - fax
lee.farrell@cda.canon.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D

------_=_NextPart_001_01C8DC78.3FC1BACA-- From pwg-announce-owner@pwg.org Thu Jul 3 07:41:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3EF53A6934; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:41:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.951 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_URI_REFID1=0.648] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IANO2h-e1QEu; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983963A6910; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m63Efvqi004567; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:41:59 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m63EfsoH004561; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:41:56 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:39:53 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m63EdnL9004059 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:39:51 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m63Ednq1004056 for pwg-announce-out; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:39:49 -0400 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> FYI: PDF format becomes ISO standard Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:40:28 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: FYI: PDF format becomes ISO standard Thread-Index: Acjcz/tGFKqoSG0HQVuLKwdCUAQUxgASn7xQ From: "Petrie, Glen" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2008 14:39:45.0874 (UTC) FILETIME=[A34DEB20:01C8DD1A] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.500.1027-16008.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--0.264000-0.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pwg.org id m63EdnhX004054 Sender: owner-pwg-announce@pwg.org > > ISO - News - PDF format becomes ISO standard > From ipp-owner@pwg.org Thu Jul 3 17:08:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169873A6AEE for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:08:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RqsMy38GG2iG for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:08:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8883A6896 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m64091cW002890 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 20:09:03 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6408x0R002883 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 20:09:01 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 3 Jul 2008 20:07:59 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6407oi2002590 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 20:07:52 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6407ogh002587 for ipp-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 20:07:50 -0400 Received: from ns2.sharplabs.com (ns2.sharplabs.com [216.65.151.154]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6407lWF002581 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 20:07:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns2.sharplabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4495F7C06C6 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:07:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sharplabs.com Received: from ns2.sharplabs.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ns2.sharplabs.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QjiUmeuTRPJM for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wabex1.enet.sharplabs.com (wabex1.sharpamericas.com [172.29.224.8]) by ns2.sharplabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wabex2.sharpamericas.com ([172.29.224.9]) by wabex1.enet.sharplabs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:07:45 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8DD69.FC5A44FB" Subject: IPP> Face-to-face meeting minutes posted Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:07:45 -0700 Message-ID: <2DB650784C0A9649B560DE38F68DA74428901E@wabex2.sharpamericas.com> In-Reply-To: <2DB650784C0A9649B560DE38F68DA744288F97@wabex2.sharpamericas.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: IPP> Face-to-face meeting minutes posted Thread-Index: AchvXEXXHeBA66wORWC9OqlJeQlOfgGKpY/gDZA33YAGUqKacAK/IGvQA1a+F5A= References: <2DB650784C0A9649B560DE38F68DA744288F35@wabex2.sharpamericas.com> <2DB650784C0A9649B560DE38F68DA744288F97@wabex2.sharpamericas.com> From: "Whittle, Craig" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jul 2008 00:07:45.0612 (UTC) FILETIME=[FC6940C0:01C8DD69] Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8DD69.FC5A44FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All: =20 The minutes from the face-to-face meeting can be found at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/ippv2-minutes/07JUN-Longmont-IPPv2-face-to -face.pdf.=20 =20 Best regards, =20 **CW =20 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8DD69.FC5A44FB Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

All:

 

The minutes from the face-to-face meeting can be found = at:

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/ippv2-minutes/07JUN-Longm= ont-IPPv2-face-to-face.pdf.

 

Best regards,

 

**CW

 

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C8DD69.FC5A44FB-- From ipp-owner@pwg.org Mon Jul 7 08:32:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BE53A67D7 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:32:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hO-VdKtXAJEg for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:32:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266C23A69EC for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m67FWJHO012240 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:32:21 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m67FWJB8012237 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:32:19 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:31:13 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m67FV44n011912 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:31:06 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m67FV4E2011909 for ipp-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:31:04 -0400 Received: from mail150.ricoh-usa-com (host150.ricoh-usa.com [208.252.21.150]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m67FV1KR011897 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:31:03 -0400 X-SEF-Processed: 5_0_0_816__2008_07_07_11_30_59 Received: from Unknown [172.16.19.238] by njwcntas37.us.ricoh.ds - SurfControl E-mail Filter ; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:30:58 -0400 Subject: IPP> Today's IPPv2 Conference Call Canceled Sensitivity: To: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: Ron.Bergman@ricoh-usa.com Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:30:58 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NJWC02/RCUS(Release 7.0.2FP1|January 10, 2007) at 07/07/2008 11:30:58 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org The IPPv2 Conference call scheduled for today is canceled. I was travelling last week and was unable to update the specification. Sorry for the late notice. The next call will be held on: Monday, July 21, 2008, 4:00 PM EDT (1:00 PM PDT) From pwg-announce-owner@pwg.org Thu Jul 10 22:05:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F0A3A6AF8; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:05:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.787 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.787 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.526, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NHcT9mZbd1tU; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02D93A6AF5; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6B55oRb022489; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:05:52 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6B55o9F022485; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:05:50 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:03:54 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6B53ndj021616 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:03:51 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6B53n29021612 for pwg-announce-out; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:03:49 -0400 To: pwg-announce@pwg.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> PWG - Tentative August Agenda X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 Message-ID: From: Harry Lewis Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:03:32 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM132/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2FP2HF300 | September 14, 2007) at 07/10/2008 23:03:32, Serialize complete at 07/10/2008 23:03:32 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="=_related 001BCC8187257483_=" Sender: owner-pwg-announce@pwg.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_related 001BCC8187257483_= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 001BCC8187257483_=" --=_alternative 001BCC8187257483_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Below is the tentative line up for the August 13-15 f2f hosted by Sharp in Vancouver, WA. Comments, recommendations, changes etc. need to be identified asap as the meeting agenda needs to be locked in. Wed: IDS Thu am: WIMS Thu late am: Plenary Thu pm: MFD Fri am: PWG Process & IPR Fri late am: IPPv2 Fri pm: MFD Harry Lewis Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Open Standards Phone: 303-924-5337 e-mail: harryl@us.ibm.com infoprint.com P Think before you print --=_alternative 001BCC8187257483_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Below is the tentative line up for the August 13-15 f2f hosted by Sharp in Vancouver, WA. Comments, recommendations, changes etc. need to be identified asap as the meeting agenda needs to be locked in.

Wed:         IDS

Thu am:      WIMS

Thu late am: Plenary

Thu pm:      MFD

Fri am:      PWG Process & IPR

Fri late am: IPPv2

Fri pm:      MFD


Harry Lewis
Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Open Standards
Phone: 303-924-5337
e-mail: harryl@us.ibm.com
infoprint.com


P Think before you print --=_alternative 001BCC8187257483_=-- --=_related 001BCC8187257483_= Content-Type: image/gif Content-ID: <_1_077D73DC077A1198001BCC8187257483> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 R0lGODlhWgAaALMAAPnJypu06PFvdGOK3MHQ8PWrrfOJjO9JT7m5ufbn5XGT3lR+2OwcJAAAAP// /wAAACH5BAAAAAAALAAAAABaABoAAAT/0MlJq704a9m210AoAl8iJpUZot/VVYFCOLFi27NUB9PO /EBgQSL4HSaGQ5BxICWUwcNQAiRRf5YXRbGYBRbgcFfCXSgmZQXwYDAUf6T30fFmCO6HYwF4rwuu DFYOQFkWXF4LPDpmZAsDCxOOZoQTbwZ0Rg57cCwsQAYoCZuBg3ATlBRaaGNfig4EjA5ch69mk1gO olWYTA5QlxWjLLm/CWt5UAyFFbRfCgHQjzlcrTSJtwwGS8Byvj/AFKMV3UtLy1usYmHTXYwKA7Bq WNpMgt1QfxUAQMPe2aXZCghENUFVI0QyCBD4AklWFy4OzMSjRI/BlG4Vp0hI8ORHPk27+3YBOrcK kSuHMw61SjQRl4OMvI4kqMNGgBJdRtwIySUSIMmD1lwlkIYyXpeWyjZWBNAtV4FkHgGYqGNEY0+C HAylG3ADzBmUEcHU+tqCAscV/Tiq6Fc2K7N06sjSmjW2rd27P/Hq3cvXbd+/gAMLHky4sOHDiBMr Xsy4sEEEqhpIRpCqghbIBjP71YA5cIfJDjpApvzis+jQDRB0Dj1hNOvPnSm7Bg3Z7+zUqVFTDk06 t+nXvD+j9p1V+GXixoEDT66l+fLnpJ9Llq7cLXPL1IVnt15we+nko6/Prgz9u2zirmuLRs5bQmz2 pkmrZx06R2PFBl3cZ5wfu4MIADs= --=_related 001BCC8187257483_=-- From ipp-owner@pwg.org Fri Jul 18 12:02:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 436DC3A6AB9 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:02:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.930, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EWSJlaSMjn+i for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:02:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E6528C244 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6IJ2Ceg001490 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:02:14 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6IJ27o5001480 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:02:12 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:01:02 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6IJ0qik001172 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:00:54 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6IJ0qpi001169 for ipp-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:00:52 -0400 Received: from mail150.ricoh-usa-com (host150.ricoh-usa.com [208.252.21.150]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6IJ0oGT001161 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:00:52 -0400 X-SEF-Processed: 5_0_0_816__2008_07_18_15_00_49 Received: from Unknown [172.16.19.238] by njwcntas37.us.ricoh.ds - SurfControl E-mail Filter ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:00:49 -0400 Subject: IPP> Reminder, IPPv2 Conference Call Monday (7/21) @ 4:00 PM EDT (1:00 PM PDT) To: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: Ron.Bergman@ricoh-usa.com Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:00:44 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NJWC02/RCUS(Release 7.0.2FP1|January 10, 2007) at 07/18/2008 03:00:49 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org IPPv2 WG Conference Call: Monday, July 21, 2008, 4:00 PM EDT (1:00 PM PDT) Note the NEW Teleconference number and access code. Also, there is no beep when you join, so please announce your presence! Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239 Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300 Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570 Attendee access code: 21967831 Agenda: 1. Identify Minute Taker 2. Approval of minutes from 6/25 Face-2-Face meeting 3. Review IPPv2 Specification changes and action items. The latest document is at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/ippv2-wd/wd-ippv2-spec10-2008-07-18.pdf (.doc) 4. Any new business From pwg-announce-owner@pwg.org Mon Jul 21 09:53:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B59913A67E7; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:53:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.624 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.624 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.838, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12=2.46, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DXupW0y6tBCO; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B9B3A6839; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LGsSE3011223; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:54:30 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6LGsSDd011219; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:54:28 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:52:28 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LGqOmj010431 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:52:26 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6LGqOnX010428 for pwg-announce-out; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:52:24 -0400 To: pwg-announce@pwg.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> June Plenary Minutes X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 Message-ID: From: Harry Lewis Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:52:13 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM132/03/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 07/21/2008 10:52:14, Serialize complete at 07/21/2008 10:52:14 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="=_related 005CAC528725748D_=" Sender: owner-pwg-announce@pwg.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_related 005CAC528725748D_= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 005CAC538725748D_=" --=_alternative 005CAC538725748D_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" I thought I had announced the June Plenary minutes when I posted them the day of the meeting. Whether it was a reflector issue or my oversight, I don't find any evidence. So here is a link to the minutes from the Longmont Plenary. ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/minutes/pwg_plenary_minutes_20080625.pdf Harry Lewis Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Open Standards Phone: 303-924-5337 e-mail: harryl@us.ibm.com infoprint.com P Think before you print --=_alternative 005CAC538725748D_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
I thought I had announced the June Plenary minutes when I posted them the day of the meeting. Whether it was a reflector issue or my oversight, I don't find any evidence. So here is a link to the minutes from the Longmont Plenary.

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/minutes/pwg_plenary_minutes_20080625.pdf

Harry Lewis
Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Open Standards
Phone: 303-924-5337
e-mail: harryl@us.ibm.com
infoprint.com


P Think before you print --=_alternative 005CAC538725748D_=-- --=_related 005CAC528725748D_= Content-Type: image/gif Content-ID: <_1_08DAE3B008DAD3F4005CAC508725748D> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 R0lGODlhWgAaALMAAPnJypu06PFvdGOK3MHQ8PWrrfOJjO9JT7m5ufbn5XGT3lR+2OwcJAAAAP// /wAAACH5BAAAAAAALAAAAABaABoAAAT/0MlJq704a9m210AoAl8iJpUZot/VVYFCOLFi27NUB9PO /EBgQSL4HSaGQ5BxICWUwcNQAiRRf5YXRbGYBRbgcFfCXSgmZQXwYDAUf6T30fFmCO6HYwF4rwuu DFYOQFkWXF4LPDpmZAsDCxOOZoQTbwZ0Rg57cCwsQAYoCZuBg3ATlBRaaGNfig4EjA5ch69mk1gO olWYTA5QlxWjLLm/CWt5UAyFFbRfCgHQjzlcrTSJtwwGS8Byvj/AFKMV3UtLy1usYmHTXYwKA7Bq WNpMgt1QfxUAQMPe2aXZCghENUFVI0QyCBD4AklWFy4OzMSjRI/BlG4Vp0hI8ORHPk27+3YBOrcK kSuHMw61SjQRl4OMvI4kqMNGgBJdRtwIySUSIMmD1lwlkIYyXpeWyjZWBNAtV4FkHgGYqGNEY0+C HAylG3ADzBmUEcHU+tqCAscV/Tiq6Fc2K7N06sjSmjW2rd27P/Hq3cvXbd+/gAMLHky4sOHDiBMr Xsy4sEEEqhpIRpCqghbIBjP71YA5cIfJDjpApvzis+jQDRB0Dj1hNOvPnSm7Bg3Z7+zUqVFTDk06 t+nXvD+j9p1V+GXixoEDT66l+fLnpJ9Llq7cLXPL1IVnt15we+nko6/Prgz9u2zirmuLRs5bQmz2 pkmrZx06R2PFBl3cZ5wfu4MIADs= --=_related 005CAC528725748D_=-- From ipp-owner@pwg.org Mon Jul 21 14:26:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E549F3A63D3 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:26:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qAtUdBkHsv8O for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D832B3A6882 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LLR7Xi021456 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:27:09 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6LLR5Qp021453 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:27:07 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:25:57 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LLPm5E021148 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:25:50 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6LLPmOm021145 for ipp-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:25:48 -0400 Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LLPkNx021137 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:25:48 -0400 Received: from relay14.apple.com (relay14.apple.com [17.128.113.52]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D3E351CCB0 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay14.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay14.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id F3E2B2813A; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:25:45 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807134-aa201bb000000ece-c7-4884fed9452b Received: from msweet.apple.com (msweet.apple.com [17.202.34.113]) by relay14.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id D340328122; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4884FEDA.1080706@apple.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:25:46 -0700 From: Michael R Sweet Organization: Apple Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipp@pwg.org Subject: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org All, In today's telecon I brought up a question about whether it would be a benefit to define a set of document formats that devices must support. This would have large benefits for interoperability and the ability for clients of all shapes and sizes to print without specialized printer drivers. The wording I am thinking of is: REQUIRED DOCUMENT FORMATS IPP v2 devices MUST support one of the following document formats: document-format Details ---------------------------------------------------- application/pdf ISO 32000-1:2008, ISO 19005-1:2005 (PDF/A), or PDF/IS? application/xhtml+xml XHTML-Print image/jpeg W3C JFIF* encapsulation image/png ISO 15948, RFC 2083 ---------------------------------------------------- * http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/jfif3.pdf I have not included application/postscript in the list because it isn't standardized beyond simple page descriptions, both in the official and real-world senses, and in many cases PostScript printers require some level of device-dependent commands to be used (think PPD files). Likewise, I have not included image/tiff since TIFF is a catch-all for thousands of sub-formats, and the most common sub-formats (TIFF-G3 and TIFF-G4) are limited to reproduction of monochrome graphics which make them less useful as a general printing format. Comments? -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer From ipp-owner@pwg.org Mon Jul 21 14:39:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA2C3A68CA for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ch4Ekj69C1RQ for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02A343A6808 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:39:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LLe4Ni024360 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:40:06 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6LLe4W6024357 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:40:04 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:39:08 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LLd4tq024039 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:39:06 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6LLd4H0024036 for ipp-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:39:04 -0400 Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com (ik-out-1112.google.com [66.249.90.177]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LLd1mh024015 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:39:03 -0400 Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c29so1200019ika.7 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:39:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=rZ9od/RHqx2v/TlwbZsQsT/AvkHeccqd4YH+cHxz6OA=; b=oo+FlWcgA+Yo5lufURiQ1uBU7oVoDDhI6mwF8ZYrFQUeILwqIuM/Qi6Jdpk0/rlfHW z7mSNy4UN+MBaUB8gYyV3MVddR7BTzuzKG5RIjWcqhPSKIre58b8bobwnpWI/cbSMlHF jUdEriyxwDQgvaHTdsOh9EuuAKriTgQG1oz9Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=XR+ZTWgQgB+zDI6ttLYkZOyhwnuDo4dTCj3tFAKfV/Sd4pmkXnIvHahGY75t0o0hqq e60HJqzZ6F50hIVo7uroVeVK9oPl5fP+R0Ag7y+8CLvlJe+/FAi/Ju+XIzJPdMh/rrry nG4bEU8C9yQsJQOPAUU2qF3afSlKYot2UeVpU= Received: by 10.210.19.11 with SMTP id 11mr3729054ebs.111.1216676340869; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.38.10 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:39:00 -0400 From: "Ira McDonald" To: ipp@pwg.org, "Ira McDonald" Subject: IPP> Required IPP attributes - missing list anywhere MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Hi, Paul Tykodi's asked at today's IPP WG telecon how to find the list of required IPP/1.1 attributes (i.e., ones that all IPP/1.1 Printer objects MUST support). I said (incorrectly) that this was listed in the IPP Registry, but sadly it's not. There is no such single list. In all IPP specs, the required attributes are documented (but not very well). For basic IPP/1.1 (RFC 2911), they are listed at: - Section 3.1.4.1 Request Operation Attributes - page 25 - attributes-charset and attributes-natural-language - Section 3.1.4.2 Response Operation Attributes - page 29 - attributes-charset and attributes-natural-language - Section 3.2 Printer Operations - some REQUIRED operation attributes - Section 3.3 Job Operations - some REQUIRED operation attributes - Section 4.2 Job Template Attributes - page 91 - all OPTIONAL - Section 4.3 Job Description Attributes - page 106 - see table - Section 4.4 Printer Description Attributes - page 124 - see table All - I think Paul's raised a good point - the list of basic IPP/1.1 (and therefore IPP/2.0) REQUIRED operation and description attributes does NOT exist - Should it be added in a normative appendix to the IPP/2.0 spec? The IANA IPP Registry (complete for all IETF RFCs but not for any PWG IPP Extensions) is at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipp-registrations (a plaintext file) Cheers, - Ira -- Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Blue Roof Music/High North Inc email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com winter: 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 summer: PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 From ipp-owner@pwg.org Mon Jul 21 14:55:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62BB63A6882 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:55:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.855 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.745, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oR14hPZqfxBU for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D0D3A6802 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LLuZ7R028494 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:56:37 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6LLuZQU028491 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:56:35 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:55:41 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LLtbvN028218 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:55:39 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6LLtb8G028215 for ipp-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:55:37 -0400 Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LLtYKQ028211 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:55:37 -0400 Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C51B0351DA16; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay11.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay11.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 9EB12280C8; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:55:34 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807130-adb98bb000000ead-23-488505d6f6c2 Received: from msweet.apple.com (msweet.apple.com [17.202.34.113]) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 797EA280B0; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <488505D6.8050306@apple.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:55:34 -0700 From: Michael R Sweet Organization: Apple Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ira McDonald CC: ipp@pwg.org Subject: Re: IPP> Required IPP attributes - missing list anywhere References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Ira McDonald wrote: > Hi, > > Paul Tykodi's asked at today's IPP WG telecon how to find > the list of required IPP/1.1 attributes (i.e., ones that all IPP/1.1 > Printer objects MUST support). > ... > All - I think Paul's raised a good point - the list of basic > IPP/1.1 (and therefore IPP/2.0) REQUIRED operation > and description attributes does NOT exist - Should it > be added in a normative appendix to the IPP/2.0 spec? Yes, absolutely. In fact, I would add a section for IPP/2.1 and IPP/2.2 as well. -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer From ipp-owner@pwg.org Mon Jul 21 15:38:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22B93A6802 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:38:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.227 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RokByHSSNs3P for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5F13A67E7 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LMcfsY002028 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:38:43 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6LMceLV002025 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:38:41 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:37:42 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LMbcUN001700 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:37:40 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6LMbc41001697 for ipp-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:37:38 -0400 Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LMbZwp001683 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:37:37 -0400 Received: from relay12.apple.com (relay12.apple.com [17.128.113.53]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55450351EDF3 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay12.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay12.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 2F7994640D7; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807135-a8a6abb00000104c-3a-48850faf1341 Received: from msweet.apple.com (msweet.apple.com [17.202.34.113]) by relay12.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 0DB19420003; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48850FAF.1020001@apple.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:37:35 -0700 From: Michael R Sweet Organization: Apple Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipp@pwg.org Subject: IPP> Text for IPPv2 Conformance Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Here is some suggested text for section 6 of the IPPv2 spec: 6 CONFORMANCE 6.1 IPP CONFORMANCE The current IPP specification [RFC2911] requires that IPP attributes received, that are not supported or not understood, are to be processed according to the defined procedures, and an appropriate status code returned. Many implementations historically have not conformed to this requirement, causing communications problems and failed printing. To claim compliance with any of the IPPv2 versions, an implementation MUST correctly process attributes, values, or groups that are not supported per RFC 2911, sections 3.1.7, 3.1.8, 3.2.1.2, 3.3.5.1, 3.3.7.1, 4.1.2.3, and 13.1.2.2, including collection attributes as defined in RFC 3382, section 7. For example, implementations MUST support reading the IPP noValue tag as a valid value for an attribute that normally would be encoded as an enum, integer, name, or keyword value tag. Similarly, implementations MUST correctly process (or ignore) collection values as defined by RFC 3382, even if the implementation does not support the media-col attribute itself. 6.2 HTTP CONFORMANCE The current IPP specification [RFC2911] requires transport over HTTP/1.1 as defined in RFC 2616. Many implementations historically have not used a HTTP/1.1 transport or provided complete HTTP/1.1 support. To claim compliance with any of the IPPv2 versions, an implementation MUST support the complete HTTP/1.1 protocol as defined in RFC 2616, including chunking as defined in section 3.6.1 and the Expect header as defined in section 5.3. In addition, implementations supporting TLS encryption MUST support the HTTP Upgrade protocol as defined in RFC 2817. -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer From ipp-owner@pwg.org Mon Jul 21 16:10:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5325A3A6ADB for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kCmCdBmb4Ltc for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B253A6A7F for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNB81n006887 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:11:10 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6LNB6gL006877 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:11:08 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:10:11 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNA7d2006435 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:10:09 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6LNA7Ie006432 for ipp-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:10:07 -0400 Received: from QMTA03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.32]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNA3rG006428 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:10:06 -0400 Received: from OMTA08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.12]) by QMTA03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id smwt1Z0060FhH24A3n9xuz; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:09:57 +0000 Received: from WagnerVistaPC ([24.61.244.13]) by OMTA08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sn9w1Z0030J3qdC8Un9whL; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:09:57 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=WrdcPsb3N8EA:10 a=k1MueVtItNoA:10 a=51RRrcYvAAAA:8 a=51GxJhrLdkWOF2HwbQMA:9 a=kl88GZvrlPt-NoB-3DkA:9 a=kF8-Av8YuNImdMuC3PlJNywzZ4IA:4 a=Cm1lGbVOD8AA:10 From: "William A Wagner" To: References: In-Reply-To: Subject: IPP> Minutes -IPPv2 Conference Call Monday (7/21) @ 4:00 PM EDT (1:00 PM PDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:07:59 -0400 Message-ID: <002401c8eb86$9ed540a0$dc7fc1e0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcjpC0ynaJUmjRMTR4ynlLy2roXe1QCeyTrw Content-Language: en-us Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Minutes for this meeting are posted at ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/ippv2-minutes/IPPv2-ConCall-Minutes-20080721.p df, doc. Bill Wagner From ipp-owner@pwg.org Mon Jul 21 16:29:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF9828C19A for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:29:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pHeti76NSaDn for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744023A68E4 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNUEAE010668 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:30:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6LNUEVr010665 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:30:14 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:29:18 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNTE8f010378 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:29:16 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6LNTEQp010375 for ipp-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:29:14 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.191]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNTBK5010355 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:29:13 -0400 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b2so580328nfb.41 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:29:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=t48TUISLQj/XlVpSjU/y1/uXCX2iUozEUKnZYAQS+UU=; b=BDn3aUKPybp+MGFheVp0wD4jvbBUqAsxA/RpdVmlj0o79UG/K0T9eHxrmOleuR+tEq Iu8mY005UKCUvWn50P0GebE/7UE+jEhoqcwFAefGxBrAN4nuVD6kKYKetWchOGO6+CGx PiQAdbanIm8zC9LcDHACAitSqrEF5nbG+pVdg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=oyIlZQvKZLuVVQTbIvC5oTo35Q2pFC9GN5ibIpnsItJj4Wgzu4r3i8nkhauc+948aB foS1tWcgFWTxlbRokgvA48F22KqV+BVMt+y6Frcfu/CWPKMbGx5Q4BdKWNtvStflbvkQ TZP1J9gzOhIlRdvnhYA+Nhed06+V+X6dJNmPM= Received: by 10.210.119.5 with SMTP id r5mr3836883ebc.17.1216682950861; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:29:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.38.10 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:29:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:29:10 -0400 From: "Ira McDonald" To: "Michael R Sweet" , "Ira McDonald" Subject: Re: IPP> Required IPP attributes - missing list anywhere Cc: ipp@pwg.org In-Reply-To: <488505D6.8050306@apple.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <488505D6.8050306@apple.com> Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Hi Mike, I agree we need required attributes lists for IPP 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2. Which means we need some help as editors. Because it's going to take a *long* time to search through the text of every IPP spec looking for the keyword REQUIRED in the body text for attributes (such as operation attributes) that are nowhere else mentioned. Mike, Ted, Bill, anyone - care to volunteer to help? Cheers, - Ira On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Michael R Sweet wrote: > Ira McDonald wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Paul Tykodi's asked at today's IPP WG telecon how to find >> the list of required IPP/1.1 attributes (i.e., ones that all IPP/1.1 >> Printer objects MUST support). >> ... >> All - I think Paul's raised a good point - the list of basic >> IPP/1.1 (and therefore IPP/2.0) REQUIRED operation >> and description attributes does NOT exist - Should it >> be added in a normative appendix to the IPP/2.0 spec? > > Yes, absolutely. In fact, I would add a section for IPP/2.1 and > IPP/2.2 as well. > > -- > ______________________________________________________________________ > Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer > -- Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Blue Roof Music/High North Inc email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com winter: 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 summer: PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 From ipp-owner@pwg.org Mon Jul 21 16:35:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20C63A6956 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:35:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.351 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0y0P1jaFhGjZ for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043A63A684D for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNa9Oo013107 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:36:11 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6LNa9Le013101 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:36:09 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:35:14 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNZA1Y012396 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:35:12 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6LNZAU1012393 for ipp-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:35:10 -0400 Received: from mail-out3.apple.com (mail-out3.apple.com [17.254.13.22]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNZ8lW012366 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:35:10 -0400 Received: from relay13.apple.com (relay13.apple.com [17.128.113.29]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495A133A14E4; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay13.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay13.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 2E35A281E3; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:34:59 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1180711d-a27f6bb000000ece-ae-48851d23b440 Received: from msweet.apple.com (msweet.apple.com [17.202.34.113]) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 0AAE7281E9; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48851D23.50804@apple.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:34:59 -0700 From: Michael R Sweet Organization: Apple Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ira McDonald CC: ipp@pwg.org Subject: Re: IPP> Required IPP attributes - missing list anywhere References: <488505D6.8050306@apple.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Ira McDonald wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I agree we need required attributes lists for IPP 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2. > > Which means we need some help as editors. Because it's going > to take a *long* time to search through the text of every IPP spec > looking for the keyword REQUIRED in the body text for attributes > (such as operation attributes) that are nowhere else mentioned. > > Mike, Ted, Bill, anyone - care to volunteer to help? I'll sift through 2911. > > Cheers, > - Ira > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Michael R Sweet wrote: >> Ira McDonald wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Paul Tykodi's asked at today's IPP WG telecon how to find >>> the list of required IPP/1.1 attributes (i.e., ones that all IPP/1.1 >>> Printer objects MUST support). >>> ... >>> All - I think Paul's raised a good point - the list of basic >>> IPP/1.1 (and therefore IPP/2.0) REQUIRED operation >>> and description attributes does NOT exist - Should it >>> be added in a normative appendix to the IPP/2.0 spec? >> Yes, absolutely. In fact, I would add a section for IPP/2.1 and >> IPP/2.2 as well. >> >> -- >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer >> > > > -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer From ipp-owner@pwg.org Mon Jul 21 16:51:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F4B3A67E7 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:51:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ttw4ml+s7bXf for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543F63A67B2 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNpuri019874 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:51:58 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6LNpuEC019871 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:51:56 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:50:58 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNos1S019548 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:50:56 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6LNos3e019545 for ipp-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:50:54 -0400 Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com (ik-out-1112.google.com [66.249.90.183]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNopd9019538 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:50:53 -0400 Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c29so1236913ika.7 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:50:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=N3a7ysz358psOKTZ+matwwV1aFeohRoygY7rzhWBoJo=; b=pRFY5OtJMUIeEZYs7N7nNxG+7SFV/sewzgYI10N/pL01IEbM0eN/uKaBqBvvQcwsZE E6rTmsFeAcOMYG1d3sYXdbQ1ifzIq1MbxdCdk1dyXRZxBr1FDyI3Za293a3dvD/5gt0l eVqUIb3+Z4kXyOmonnP7nTTwmUb710LUeotxk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=CvROdZJdMqs0KUr+Dcs4GLGspxL7nzpCqF7PAlTMMq8iyU3zFOVgS2QNHFJIALqkTv o+ClZsqajyJ+piPec90RPKax5zcrJFc1Bb/PA5lx45c5epbDPhWZaHVU1ExmBfj40Nao deJwGUKuyfli2LF3tsuWbBucA02oXYj9kCC9o= Received: by 10.210.80.2 with SMTP id d2mr3855176ebb.7.1216684250549; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.38.10 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:50:50 -0400 From: "Ira McDonald" To: "Michael R Sweet" , "Ira McDonald" Subject: Re: IPP> Required IPP attributes - missing list anywhere Cc: ipp@pwg.org In-Reply-To: <48851D23.50804@apple.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <488505D6.8050306@apple.com> <48851D23.50804@apple.com> Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Hi Mike, Great - thanks for the help! By the way, the IANA Registry *does* contain a complete list of IETF spec IPP attributes *with* source document and section references - starting with that list (just adding a REQ/OPT column) would hopefully ensure that we don't miss any IANA-registered ones. Harry Lewis and I have a somewhat ancient action item from PWG Steering Committee to gather up the IANA registrations (for attributes, operations, objects, etc.) from all the PWG specs - fortunately (for Harry and I), the IANA and IETF process people haven't been answering their mail (smile). Jerry Thrasher plans to talk to IETF Area Directors and IANA folks in person next week at IETF 72 in Dublin, Ireland and get some progress on IANA IPP and IANA Printer MIB registries. Cheers, - Ira On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Michael R Sweet wrote: > Ira McDonald wrote: >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> I agree we need required attributes lists for IPP 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2. >> >> Which means we need some help as editors. Because it's going >> to take a *long* time to search through the text of every IPP spec >> looking for the keyword REQUIRED in the body text for attributes >> (such as operation attributes) that are nowhere else mentioned. >> >> Mike, Ted, Bill, anyone - care to volunteer to help? > > I'll sift through 2911. > >> >> Cheers, >> - Ira >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Michael R Sweet wrote: >>> >>> Ira McDonald wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Paul Tykodi's asked at today's IPP WG telecon how to find >>>> the list of required IPP/1.1 attributes (i.e., ones that all IPP/1.1 >>>> Printer objects MUST support). >>>> ... >>>> All - I think Paul's raised a good point - the list of basic >>>> IPP/1.1 (and therefore IPP/2.0) REQUIRED operation >>>> and description attributes does NOT exist - Should it >>>> be added in a normative appendix to the IPP/2.0 spec? >>> >>> Yes, absolutely. In fact, I would add a section for IPP/2.1 and >>> IPP/2.2 as well. >>> >>> -- >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > ______________________________________________________________________ > Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer > -- Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Blue Roof Music/High North Inc email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com winter: 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 summer: PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 From ipp-owner@pwg.org Mon Jul 21 16:56:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5A93A6802 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:56:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.413 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FRh2mqqj8GM6 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDD03A67E7 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNvZMn021593 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:57:37 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6LNvZ5h021590 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:57:35 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:56:41 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNubkI021063 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:56:39 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6LNub4M021060 for ipp-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:56:37 -0400 Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6LNuYpg021049 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:56:36 -0400 Received: from relay12.apple.com (relay12.apple.com [17.128.113.53]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E7C53520F28 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay12.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay12.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 86EB646409D; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:56:34 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807135-a9a6cbb00000104c-b4-488522327fe4 Received: from msweet.apple.com (msweet.apple.com [17.202.34.113]) by relay12.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 69F19420004; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48852233.901@apple.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:56:35 -0700 From: Michael R Sweet Organization: Apple Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipp@pwg.org Subject: IPP> Required IPP Attributes: RFC 2911 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org [Except as noted, all attributes lists are for all IPP 2.x versions] Operation Attributes attributes-charset attributes-natural-language compression document-name document-format ipp-attribute-fidelity job-hold-until (IPP v2.1 and v2.2) job-id job-uri last-document (IPP v2.1 and v2.2) limit my-jobs printer-uri requested-attributes requesting-user-name which-jobs Job Description Attributes job-id job-name job-originating-user-name job-printer-up-time job-printer-uri job-state job-state-reasons job-uri time-at-completed time-at-creation time-at-processing Printer Description Attributes charset-configured charset-supported compression-supported document-format-default document-format-supported (possibly require one common format) generated-natural-language-supported ipp-versions-supported (will need to define keywords for 2.0, 2.1, 2.2) job-hold-until-default (IPP v2.1 and v2.2) job-hold-until-supported (IPP v2.1 and v2.2) natural-language-configured operations-supported pdl-override-supported printer-is-accepting-jobs printer-name printer-state printer-state-reasons printer-up-time printer-uri-supported queued-job-count uri-authentication-supported uri-security-supported -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer From ipp-owner@pwg.org Tue Jul 22 11:39:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06B828C0DC for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:39:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4u-lXnoo8iDL for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884B93A695D for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6MIeIRC029693 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:40:20 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6MIeIc3029685 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:40:18 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:39:11 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6MId0Vl029132 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:39:02 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6MId0II029127 for ipp-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.187]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6MIcvHq029114 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0400 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b2so732530nfb.41 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:38:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=ac9LnvZqs5tpqAi35m1hei6MtJiszZgTE44fLY46ZIQ=; b=b9TZ/GMkZj+gm7xMzXOUmiO2sjZd09/O+EkTCb5nv8Zs2HBZVUL2Y6pNoAKhxskiqr 97NhHHSKvj8Sh3m6Fv0VVpYU4J+5YSp0izF2kQdRdV44MreAoago9uc4AA3BGuBMWSSi nol/FRB74SDBJXUwOpAk65+53O7rfjCDLHkeo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=puOThwCeO7K4I8/821qgTxLZOHIQsN5iJPFSRGb9HptYxBrUHa8ukxXnLF4ANm9oYN gTSNX0Lk3GyrYfcmueUg+5kXxvbLnxwQ58/yRAV5cK+olsouLnjHvI8+jSNEdeb5IY+A EaPTQ1pgOc6wRJlY5ZJPOfIEM7n/MW7cggNBI= Received: by 10.210.68.17 with SMTP id q17mr4850930eba.53.1216751936191; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.38.10 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:38:55 -0400 From: "Ira McDonald" To: ipp@pwg.org Subject: IPP> Revised IPPv2 Statement of Work (25 June 2008) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Hi, This IPPv2 SOW corrects substantial errors in the previous version. For review at the next IPP WG telecon and/or PWG Steering Committee meeting. Cheers, - Ira ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ira McDonald Date: Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:54 PM Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Revised IPPv2 Statement of Work (25 June 2008) To: pwg-announce@pwg.org, Ira McDonald Hi, Redlined version, cleaned up per discussion at April face-to-face and on mailing list. Note the fnew Implementation stage details (for IPP/2.1 and IPP/2.2): ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/ippv2-docs/wd-ippv2-statement-of-work-20080625.pdf / doc Comments? ACTION - PWG Steering Committee - review, revise, and approve this updated SOW ASAP, in order to proceed with our IPPv2 working drafts. Cheers, - Ira -- Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Blue Roof Music/High North Inc email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com winter: 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 summer: PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 -- Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Blue Roof Music/High North Inc email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com winter: 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 summer: PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 From ipp-owner@pwg.org Thu Jul 24 15:29:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C913A680C for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:29:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04jahB5yFhQF for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B15523A67F6 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6OMPCGx023648 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:29:40 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6OMHwMa022337 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:17:59 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:17:11 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6OMH1jx022071 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:17:03 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6OMH17Q022068 for ipp-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:17:01 -0400 Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com (ik-out-1112.google.com [66.249.90.182]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6OMGwgV022060 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:17:01 -0400 Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c29so2468679ika.7 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:16:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=z/8HxbAgyMIoFsIXEXClgsxH2Dsd79/jw+yt166xeTw=; b=BfKaQKyXhcatDQXNQkyw37FHAUDYJr2m1umeqpYaq/3wV8NXCfMlZTCiu5cR1J3EKM bNicJk2YHRgFWXGY+VaqVOGbEwsPeRUg8o/MQtF5RBonFef7bqASjnQDdmsB+Pjbhsiu 5tyP5eykfWAMEXWRUIQG8odGIC1GVlGlq+Xao= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=EkvQC8/9EjH/ga3mU0vV+te55M+YP6GIbmO6oikUHeb/KTx+ZuJTpFSTaOFJIBVQRZ s7TmcF82Dami+D57pBnC3A3oSwQpCPKm7+PYYoTP+tasRoYjZPmvhokg5KFBAXd08fh7 RvMx4PvhWM0LP3F5HOl3xIcHHE9Q8RlCcyF+E= Received: by 10.210.16.17 with SMTP id 17mr984718ebp.127.1216937817242; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.135.19 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:16:57 -0400 From: "Ira McDonald" To: ipp@pwg.org, "Ira McDonald" Subject: IPP> APPROVED - Revised IPPv2 Statement of Work (24 July 2008) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Hi, Approved without any changes by the PWG Steering Committee earlier today: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/ippv2-docs/wd-ippv2-statement-of-work-20080724.pdf Please note additional milestones in Definition and Implementation stages. Cheers, - Ira (co-editor of IPPv2) -- Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Blue Roof Music/High North Inc email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com winter: 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 summer: PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 From pwg-announce-owner@pwg.org Fri Jul 25 16:26:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C0473A68E3; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:26:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pRwLTOpxFcpV; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:26:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2743A688A; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6PNQIew008761; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:26:20 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6PNQGJe008746; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:26:18 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:24:17 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6PNOC23007787 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:24:14 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6PNOCsf007784 for pwg-announce-out; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:24:12 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8EEAD.878EC8F6" Subject: RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Meeting locations for 2009 -- WE NEED HOSTS Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:23:53 -0700 Message-ID: <02954887D466F24D9F3FC9F47466DEF00A9FFE74@cdaexchange.sc.rd.canon.com> In-Reply-To: <02954887D466F24D9F3FC9F47466DEF00A880E08@cdaexchange.sc.rd.canon.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Meeting locations for 2009 -- WE NEED HOSTS Thread-Index: AcjceD+xIi5fYGzjS7+Jne5LMB8WXgSNFDSA References: <02954887D466F24D9F3FC9F47466DEF00A880E08@cdaexchange.sc.rd.canon.com> From: "Farrell, Lee" To: Sender: owner-pwg-announce@pwg.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8EEAD.878EC8F6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings again, =20 The subject line says it all. We're still looking for volunteers whose companies can host a PWG meeting in 2009. =20 So far, there has been only one positive response. That leaves five (or more?) meetings unhosted. =20 =20 Lee ________________________________ From: owner-pwg-announce@pwg.org [mailto:owner-pwg-announce@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Farrell, Lee Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 12:17 PM To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Meeting locations for 2009 Hello everyone,=20 It has been claimed that we cannot begin the planning for next year's face-to-face meetings too early.=20 As an initial step, I would like any and all members that believe their company could host a meeting in 2009 to respond to me by submitting at least the following information: Hosting Company, Possible Location(s) for Hosting [i.e., cities], Best Timeframe(s) [i.e., months or seasons], Percent Likelihood At this point, I think we can assume that the hosting requirements will probably limited to 2-3 days of the week, with 15 attendees on average. Of course, these numbers might change in the future, depending on specific activity and levels of participation. Please note that none of the responses will signify a commitment at this time. I am only trying to see what kind of options we might have for establishing a meeting schedule for next year. Thanks in advance,=20 Lee Farrell=20 PWG Vice Chair=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=20 Canon Development Americas=20 15975 Alton Parkway=20 Irvine, CA 92618-3731=20 (949) 932-3163 - voice=20 (949) 932-3520 - fax=20 lee.farrell@cda.canon.com=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8EEAD.878EC8F6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Meeting locations for 2009

Greetings again,
 
The subject line says it all.  We're = still looking=20 for volunteers whose companies can host a PWG meeting in=20 2009.
 
So far, there has been only one positive=20 response.  That leaves five (or more?) meetings=20 unhosted.
 
 
Lee

From: owner-pwg-announce@pwg.org=20 [mailto:owner-pwg-announce@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Farrell,=20 Lee
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 12:17 PM
To:=20 pwg-announce@pwg.org
Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Meeting = locations for=20 2009

Hello everyone,

It has been claimed that we cannot begin = the planning=20 for next year's face-to-face meetings too early.

As an initial step, I would like any and = all members=20 that believe their company could host a meeting in 2009 to respond to me = by=20 submitting at least the following information:

Hosting Company, Possible Location(s) for = Hosting=20 [i.e., cities], Best Timeframe(s) [i.e., months or seasons], Percent=20 Likelihood

At this point, I think we can assume that = the hosting=20 requirements will probably limited to 2-3 days of the week, with 15 = attendees on=20 average.  Of course, these numbers might change in the future, = depending on=20 specific activity and levels of participation.

Please note that none of the responses = will signify a=20 commitment at this time.  I am only trying to see what kind of = options we=20 might have for establishing a meeting schedule for next = year.



Thanks in advance,

Lee  Farrell
PWG Vice Chair
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Canon Development Americas
15975 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA=20 92618-3731
(949) 932-3163 = -=20 voice
(949) 932-3520 - = fax=20
lee.farrell@cda.canon.com =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

------_=_NextPart_001_01C8EEAD.878EC8F6-- From ipp-owner@pwg.org Mon Jul 28 07:07:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C4103A6A49 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:07:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lx3AfoR01+4s for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4A13A6A19 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6SE7ld5015831 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:07:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6SE7jun015828 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:07:47 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:06:25 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6SE6FHw015328 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:06:17 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6SE6FlK015325 for ipp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:06:15 -0400 Received: from omr11.networksolutionsemail.com (omr11.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.61]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6SE6AUm015292 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:06:15 -0400 Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com (ns-omr11.mgt.hosting.dc2.netsol.com [10.49.6.74]) by omr11.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id m6SE66af015588 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:06:09 -0400 Received: (qmail 949 invoked by uid 78); 28 Jul 2008 14:06:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO TCSLAPTOP01) (ptykodi@tykodi.com@24.61.110.137) by ns-omr11.lb.hosting.dc2.netsol.com with SMTP; 28 Jul 2008 14:06:05 -0000 Reply-To: From: "Paul Tykodi" To: References: <4884FEDA.1080706@apple.com> Subject: RE: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:06:01 -0400 Organization: Tykodi Consulting Services LLC Message-ID: <7E0EDEFA92964B4EA8308B47CC29060F@TCSLAPTOP01> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512 In-reply-to: <4884FEDA.1080706@apple.com> Thread-Index: AcjreTv73hgWiwoIRz6oG/3PM/uoXgFQRblA Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Hi Michael, As far as I know, IPP support is slowly working its way into network printer interfaces for the label printing niche (both impact and direct thermal/thermal transfer print technologies) and into some of the dot matrix printer NIC's as well. These types of printers do not support the same document formats as the inkjet and laser technology based printers. If IPP were to become involved with specifying document formats, I think it would be a good idea to create a separate IPP document formats track with its own RFC or PWG based specification that could be referenced by the ippv2 documents. Best Regards, /Paul -- Paul Tykodi Principal Consultant TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820 Mobile: 603-866-0712 E-mail: ptykodi@tykodi.com WWW: http://www.tykodi.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Michael R > Sweet > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:26 PM > To: ipp@pwg.org > Subject: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? > > All, > > In today's telecon I brought up a question about whether it would be > a benefit to define a set of document formats that devices must > support. This would have large benefits for interoperability and > the ability for clients of all shapes and sizes to print without > specialized printer drivers. > > The wording I am thinking of is: > > REQUIRED DOCUMENT FORMATS > > IPP v2 devices MUST support one of the following document > formats: > > document-format Details > ---------------------------------------------------- > application/pdf ISO 32000-1:2008, > ISO 19005-1:2005 (PDF/A), > or PDF/IS? > application/xhtml+xml XHTML-Print > image/jpeg W3C JFIF* encapsulation > image/png ISO 15948, RFC 2083 > ---------------------------------------------------- > * http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/jfif3.pdf > > I have not included application/postscript in the list because it > isn't standardized beyond simple page descriptions, both in the > official and real-world senses, and in many cases PostScript > printers require some level of device-dependent commands to be > used (think PPD files). > > Likewise, I have not included image/tiff since TIFF is a catch-all > for thousands of sub-formats, and the most common sub-formats > (TIFF-G3 and TIFF-G4) are limited to reproduction of monochrome > graphics which make them less useful as a general printing format. > > Comments? > > -- > ______________________________________________________________________ > Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ipp-owner@pwg.org Mon Jul 28 11:18:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782D83A6AF2 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:18:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tCzToErebM8Y for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EEAB3A6AF0 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6SIIQUZ017477 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:18:28 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6SIIOXe017459 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:18:26 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:17:21 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6SIHGLJ016828 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:17:18 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6SIHGiC016825 for ipp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:17:16 -0400 Received: from mail-out3.apple.com (mail-out3.apple.com [17.254.13.22]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6SIHDMx016805 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:17:15 -0400 Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1827A346D95F; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay11.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay11.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 042CD28084; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:52:30 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807130-aa391bb000000ead-ad-488e075d29ca Received: from msweet.apple.com (msweet.apple.com [17.202.34.113]) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id CE7402807B; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <488E075D.6060103@apple.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:52:29 -0700 From: Michael R Sweet Organization: Apple Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ptykodi@tykodi.com CC: ipp@pwg.org Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? References: <4884FEDA.1080706@apple.com> <7E0EDEFA92964B4EA8308B47CC29060F@TCSLAPTOP01> In-Reply-To: <7E0EDEFA92964B4EA8308B47CC29060F@TCSLAPTOP01> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Paul Tykodi wrote: > Hi Michael, > > As far as I know, IPP support is slowly working its way into network printer > interfaces for the label printing niche (both impact and direct > thermal/thermal transfer print technologies) and into some of the dot matrix > printer NIC's as well. > > These types of printers do not support the same document formats as the > inkjet and laser technology based printers. > > If IPP were to become involved with specifying document formats, I think it > would be a good idea to create a separate IPP document formats track with > its own RFC or PWG based specification that could be referenced by the ippv2 > documents. Well, the PWG already had done a lot of work in this area, including XHTML-Print. There are other groups that have standardized on JPEG for consumer devices (PictBridge and others), the ISO and IETF have standards for PNG, and of course the ISO has defined PDF profiles. I don't think the problem is having a standard or referencing other standards! These formats are already supported by a wide variety of devices in different ways - it would be nice to guarantee support for at least one common format in every IPP 2.x printer, as it solves a major (IMHO) problem with IPP that the PWG hasn't yet tackled - all printers require a device-specific client-side printer driver to do even basic printing. If IPP 2.x printers did support one (or all) of the formats I've listed, then a customer would know they could print from any client. Obviously there would still be a use for device-specific drivers, e.g. higher speed print modes and support for complex jobs, but *basic* printing (email, web pages, photos) could be done without all of that. IMHO, adding a (short) list of required document-formats to IPP 2.x will just make it *more* compelling as a standard. Right now we are just stapling all of the different IPP specs together to make profiles - chances are most vendors will look at their product and say "we already conform to IPP 2.0, just add 2.0 to our supported versions and move on". That doesn't ultimately help us promote IPP 2.x, since nothing will have really changed. However, if we can make IPP really useful by requiring support for at least one common document format, then IPP can truly be marketed as an enabling technology rather than being listed along side AppSocket, LPD, and 50 other "supported" printing protocols. In short, let's make IPP more than just a replacement for LPD. > Best Regards, > > /Paul > -- > Paul Tykodi > Principal Consultant > TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC > > Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820 > Mobile: 603-866-0712 > E-mail: ptykodi@tykodi.com > WWW: http://www.tykodi.com > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Michael R >> Sweet >> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:26 PM >> To: ipp@pwg.org >> Subject: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? >> >> All, >> >> In today's telecon I brought up a question about whether it would be >> a benefit to define a set of document formats that devices must >> support. This would have large benefits for interoperability and >> the ability for clients of all shapes and sizes to print without >> specialized printer drivers. >> >> The wording I am thinking of is: >> >> REQUIRED DOCUMENT FORMATS >> >> IPP v2 devices MUST support one of the following document >> formats: >> >> document-format Details >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> application/pdf ISO 32000-1:2008, >> ISO 19005-1:2005 (PDF/A), >> or PDF/IS? >> application/xhtml+xml XHTML-Print >> image/jpeg W3C JFIF* encapsulation >> image/png ISO 15948, RFC 2083 >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> * http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/jfif3.pdf >> >> I have not included application/postscript in the list because it >> isn't standardized beyond simple page descriptions, both in the >> official and real-world senses, and in many cases PostScript >> printers require some level of device-dependent commands to be >> used (think PPD files). >> >> Likewise, I have not included image/tiff since TIFF is a catch-all >> for thousands of sub-formats, and the most common sub-formats >> (TIFF-G3 and TIFF-G4) are limited to reproduction of monochrome >> graphics which make them less useful as a general printing format. >> >> Comments? >> >> -- >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer From ipp-owner@pwg.org Tue Jul 29 02:25:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B853A68E4 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:25:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1IQP1WS6gRex for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:25:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769463A6847 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:25:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6T9POpj012344 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:25:26 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6T9PK8f012327 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:25:24 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:24:16 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6T9O6Qi011985 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:24:08 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6T9O6QL011982 for ipp-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:24:06 -0400 Received: from CDAExchange.sc.rd.canon.com (scorpius.ca.canon.com [146.184.4.62]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6T9O2Mi011968 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:24:05 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:23:53 -0700 Message-ID: <02954887D466F24D9F3FC9F47466DEF00AA00211@cdaexchange.sc.rd.canon.com> In-Reply-To: <488E075D.6060103@apple.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? Thread-Index: Acjw3zIAsLyJwQfeQJWBu7uBpBrdpwAfTLjg References: <4884FEDA.1080706@apple.com> <7E0EDEFA92964B4EA8308B47CC29060F@TCSLAPTOP01> <488E075D.6060103@apple.com> From: "Farrell, Lee" To: "Michael R Sweet" , Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pwg.org id m6T9O5Mi011980 Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Before we get too far afield with this discussion topic, let me remind everyone of the recently approved update to the IPPv2 Statement of Work in which the following is identified: Out-of-scope: * OSS-1 New IPP functionality or features MUST NOT be included in this IPP/2.x specification. * OSS-2 Details of IPP commands, attributes, or other features MUST NOT be included in this IPP/2.x specification, except as needed (e.g., references to attributes REQUIRED by newly REQUIRED operations. I think defining a mandatory document format would qualify as a "New IPP functionality". lee -----Original Message----- From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Michael R Sweet Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:52 PM To: ptykodi@tykodi.com Cc: ipp@pwg.org Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? Paul Tykodi wrote: > Hi Michael, > > As far as I know, IPP support is slowly working its way into network > printer interfaces for the label printing niche (both impact and > direct thermal/thermal transfer print technologies) and into some of > the dot matrix printer NIC's as well. > > These types of printers do not support the same document formats as > the inkjet and laser technology based printers. > > If IPP were to become involved with specifying document formats, I > think it would be a good idea to create a separate IPP document > formats track with its own RFC or PWG based specification that could > be referenced by the ippv2 documents. Well, the PWG already had done a lot of work in this area, including XHTML-Print. There are other groups that have standardized on JPEG for consumer devices (PictBridge and others), the ISO and IETF have standards for PNG, and of course the ISO has defined PDF profiles. I don't think the problem is having a standard or referencing other standards! These formats are already supported by a wide variety of devices in different ways - it would be nice to guarantee support for at least one common format in every IPP 2.x printer, as it solves a major (IMHO) problem with IPP that the PWG hasn't yet tackled - all printers require a device-specific client-side printer driver to do even basic printing. If IPP 2.x printers did support one (or all) of the formats I've listed, then a customer would know they could print from any client. Obviously there would still be a use for device-specific drivers, e.g. higher speed print modes and support for complex jobs, but *basic* printing (email, web pages, photos) could be done without all of that. IMHO, adding a (short) list of required document-formats to IPP 2.x will just make it *more* compelling as a standard. Right now we are just stapling all of the different IPP specs together to make profiles - chances are most vendors will look at their product and say "we already conform to IPP 2.0, just add 2.0 to our supported versions and move on". That doesn't ultimately help us promote IPP 2.x, since nothing will have really changed. However, if we can make IPP really useful by requiring support for at least one common document format, then IPP can truly be marketed as an enabling technology rather than being listed along side AppSocket, LPD, and 50 other "supported" printing protocols. In short, let's make IPP more than just a replacement for LPD. > Best Regards, > > /Paul > -- > Paul Tykodi > Principal Consultant > TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC > > Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820 > Mobile: 603-866-0712 > E-mail: ptykodi@tykodi.com > WWW: http://www.tykodi.com > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of >> Michael R Sweet >> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:26 PM >> To: ipp@pwg.org >> Subject: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? >> >> All, >> >> In today's telecon I brought up a question about whether it would be >> a benefit to define a set of document formats that devices must >> support. This would have large benefits for interoperability and the >> ability for clients of all shapes and sizes to print without >> specialized printer drivers. >> >> The wording I am thinking of is: >> >> REQUIRED DOCUMENT FORMATS >> >> IPP v2 devices MUST support one of the following document >> formats: >> >> document-format Details >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> application/pdf ISO 32000-1:2008, >> ISO 19005-1:2005 (PDF/A), >> or PDF/IS? >> application/xhtml+xml XHTML-Print >> image/jpeg W3C JFIF* encapsulation >> image/png ISO 15948, RFC 2083 >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> * http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/jfif3.pdf >> >> I have not included application/postscript in the list because it >> isn't standardized beyond simple page descriptions, both in the >> official and real-world senses, and in many cases PostScript printers >> require some level of device-dependent commands to be used (think PPD >> files). >> >> Likewise, I have not included image/tiff since TIFF is a catch-all >> for thousands of sub-formats, and the most common sub-formats >> (TIFF-G3 and TIFF-G4) are limited to reproduction of monochrome >> graphics which make them less useful as a general printing format. >> >> Comments? >> >> -- >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer From ipp-owner@pwg.org Tue Jul 29 05:41:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2502428C0FD for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:41:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fomhMBSefAUz for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:41:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB093A68EB for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:41:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6TCfUCh025081 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:41:32 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6TCfSxq025078 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:41:30 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:40:26 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6TCeLaa024654 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:40:23 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6TCeL4S024651 for ipp-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:40:21 -0400 Received: from exprod8og101.obsmtp.com (exprod8og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.3.82]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6TCeE0C024590; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:40:19 -0400 Received: from source ([192.146.101.7]) by exprod8ob101.postini.com ([64.18.7.12]) with SMTP; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:40:11 PDT Received: from lxkssmtp2e.lex.lexmark.com (smtp5b.notes.lexmark.com [157.184.50.112]) by smtp02a.notes.lexmark.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4491380C5; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:37:53 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <02954887D466F24D9F3FC9F47466DEF00AA00211@cdaexchange.sc.rd.canon.com> Subject: RE: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? To: "Farrell, Lee" Cc: ipp@pwg.org, "Michael R Sweet" , owner-ipp@pwg.org, ptykodi@tykodi.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.5 November 30, 2005 Message-ID: From: Dave Whitehead Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:40:32 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on smtp5b/Lex/Lexmark(Release 6.5.5|November 30, 2005) at 07/29/2008 08:40:11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org I agree with Lee -- adding a mandatory document format is out-of-scope under our current charter. However, I also think it's a good idea. dhw "Farrell, Lee" To Sent by: "Michael R Sweet" owner-ipp@pwg.org , cc 07/29/2008 05:23 AM Subject RE: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? Before we get too far afield with this discussion topic, let me remind everyone of the recently approved update to the IPPv2 Statement of Work in which the following is identified: Out-of-scope: * OSS-1 New IPP functionality or features MUST NOT be included in this IPP/2.x specification. * OSS-2 Details of IPP commands, attributes, or other features MUST NOT be included in this IPP/2.x specification, except as needed (e.g., references to attributes REQUIRED by newly REQUIRED operations. I think defining a mandatory document format would qualify as a "New IPP functionality". lee -----Original Message----- From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Michael R Sweet Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:52 PM To: ptykodi@tykodi.com Cc: ipp@pwg.org Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? Paul Tykodi wrote: > Hi Michael, > > As far as I know, IPP support is slowly working its way into network > printer interfaces for the label printing niche (both impact and > direct thermal/thermal transfer print technologies) and into some of > the dot matrix printer NIC's as well. > > These types of printers do not support the same document formats as > the inkjet and laser technology based printers. > > If IPP were to become involved with specifying document formats, I > think it would be a good idea to create a separate IPP document > formats track with its own RFC or PWG based specification that could > be referenced by the ippv2 documents. Well, the PWG already had done a lot of work in this area, including XHTML-Print. There are other groups that have standardized on JPEG for consumer devices (PictBridge and others), the ISO and IETF have standards for PNG, and of course the ISO has defined PDF profiles. I don't think the problem is having a standard or referencing other standards! These formats are already supported by a wide variety of devices in different ways - it would be nice to guarantee support for at least one common format in every IPP 2.x printer, as it solves a major (IMHO) problem with IPP that the PWG hasn't yet tackled - all printers require a device-specific client-side printer driver to do even basic printing. If IPP 2.x printers did support one (or all) of the formats I've listed, then a customer would know they could print from any client. Obviously there would still be a use for device-specific drivers, e.g. higher speed print modes and support for complex jobs, but *basic* printing (email, web pages, photos) could be done without all of that. IMHO, adding a (short) list of required document-formats to IPP 2.x will just make it *more* compelling as a standard. Right now we are just stapling all of the different IPP specs together to make profiles - chances are most vendors will look at their product and say "we already conform to IPP 2.0, just add 2.0 to our supported versions and move on". That doesn't ultimately help us promote IPP 2.x, since nothing will have really changed. However, if we can make IPP really useful by requiring support for at least one common document format, then IPP can truly be marketed as an enabling technology rather than being listed along side AppSocket, LPD, and 50 other "supported" printing protocols. In short, let's make IPP more than just a replacement for LPD. > Best Regards, > > /Paul > -- > Paul Tykodi > Principal Consultant > TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC > > Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820 > Mobile: 603-866-0712 > E-mail: ptykodi@tykodi.com > WWW: http://www.tykodi.com > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of >> Michael R Sweet >> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:26 PM >> To: ipp@pwg.org >> Subject: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? >> >> All, >> >> In today's telecon I brought up a question about whether it would be >> a benefit to define a set of document formats that devices must >> support. This would have large benefits for interoperability and the >> ability for clients of all shapes and sizes to print without >> specialized printer drivers. >> >> The wording I am thinking of is: >> >> REQUIRED DOCUMENT FORMATS >> >> IPP v2 devices MUST support one of the following document >> formats: >> >> document-format Details >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> application/pdf ISO 32000-1:2008, >> ISO 19005-1:2005 (PDF/A), >> or PDF/IS? >> application/xhtml+xml XHTML-Print >> image/jpeg W3C JFIF* encapsulation >> image/png ISO 15948, RFC 2083 >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> * http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/jfif3.pdf >> >> I have not included application/postscript in the list because it >> isn't standardized beyond simple page descriptions, both in the >> official and real-world senses, and in many cases PostScript printers >> require some level of device-dependent commands to be used (think PPD >> files). >> >> Likewise, I have not included image/tiff since TIFF is a catch-all >> for thousands of sub-formats, and the most common sub-formats >> (TIFF-G3 and TIFF-G4) are limited to reproduction of monochrome >> graphics which make them less useful as a general printing format. >> >> Comments? >> >> -- >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer From ipp-owner@pwg.org Tue Jul 29 06:43:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1824D28C2FA for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:43:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0BAO3Z1E+3vz for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DDCB3A6765 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6TDhj26009064 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:43:47 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6TDhheK009055 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:43:45 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:42:38 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6TDgYBv008665 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:42:36 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6TDgYpY008662 for ipp-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:42:34 -0400 Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6TDgV6e008655 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:42:33 -0400 Received: from relay12.apple.com (relay12.apple.com [17.128.113.53]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E67E360A47F; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay12.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay12.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id E297A464004; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:42:30 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807135-a7511bb00000652c-05-488f1e460087 Received: from mbp.local (unknown [17.151.83.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay12.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 74AA6420006; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:42:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <488F1E45.5080203@apple.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:42:29 -0700 From: Michael R Sweet Organization: Apple Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Farrell, Lee" CC: ptykodi@tykodi.com, ipp@pwg.org Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? References: <4884FEDA.1080706@apple.com> <7E0EDEFA92964B4EA8308B47CC29060F@TCSLAPTOP01> <488E075D.6060103@apple.com> <02954887D466F24D9F3FC9F47466DEF00AA00211@cdaexchange.sc.rd.canon.com> In-Reply-To: <02954887D466F24D9F3FC9F47466DEF00AA00211@cdaexchange.sc.rd.canon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Farrell, Lee wrote: > Before we get too far afield with this discussion topic, let me remind > everyone of the recently approved update to the IPPv2 Statement of Work > in which the following is identified: > > Out-of-scope: > * OSS-1 New IPP functionality or features MUST NOT be included > in this IPP/2.x specification. > * OSS-2 Details of IPP commands, attributes, or other features > MUST NOT be included in this IPP/2.x specification, except as needed > (e.g., references to attributes REQUIRED by newly REQUIRED operations. > > > I think defining a mandatory document format would qualify as a "New IPP > functionality". While I agree that it is out-of-scope for the current SOW, I'd also propose that we change the SOW. Right now we are putting together a wonderful combination of the IPP/1.1 specs to make new "unified" 2.x specs, but the main problem is that either vendors will ignore 2.x (why add media standardized names when we only support our proprietary PDL with no overrides) or have already implemented everything needed for 2.x. IPP will remain only as an "LPD replacement" and be no more useful than LPD. However, if we tackle adding required document formats, then we have effectively "raised the bar" to make IPP something more compelling. More importantly, it will be something marketable, both in the home/small office and corporate spaces. Multi-function devices already outsell regular printers by a significant margin, and most come with support for direct-connect printing from embedded devices (cameras, phones, etc.) via PictBridge. There is no equivalent for networked printers, and since smart phones and other embedded devices are in wide use it would be nice to support printing from them... > lee > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Michael > R Sweet > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:52 PM > To: ptykodi@tykodi.com > Cc: ipp@pwg.org > Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? > > Paul Tykodi wrote: >> Hi Michael, >> >> As far as I know, IPP support is slowly working its way into network >> printer interfaces for the label printing niche (both impact and >> direct thermal/thermal transfer print technologies) and into some of >> the dot matrix printer NIC's as well. >> >> These types of printers do not support the same document formats as >> the inkjet and laser technology based printers. >> >> If IPP were to become involved with specifying document formats, I >> think it would be a good idea to create a separate IPP document >> formats track with its own RFC or PWG based specification that could >> be referenced by the ippv2 documents. > > Well, the PWG already had done a lot of work in this area, including > XHTML-Print. There are other groups that have standardized on JPEG for > consumer devices (PictBridge and others), the ISO and IETF have > standards for PNG, and of course the ISO has defined PDF profiles. > I don't think the problem is having a standard or referencing other > standards! > > These formats are already supported by a wide variety of devices in > different ways - it would be nice to guarantee support for at least one > common format in every IPP 2.x printer, as it solves a major > (IMHO) problem with IPP that the PWG hasn't yet tackled - all printers > require a device-specific client-side printer driver to do even basic > printing. > > If IPP 2.x printers did support one (or all) of the formats I've listed, > then a customer would know they could print from any client. > Obviously there would still be a use for device-specific drivers, e.g. > higher speed print modes and support for complex jobs, but > *basic* printing (email, web pages, photos) could be done without all of > that. > > IMHO, adding a (short) list of required document-formats to IPP 2.x will > just make it *more* compelling as a standard. Right now we are just > stapling all of the different IPP specs together to make profiles - > chances are most vendors will look at their product and say "we already > conform to IPP 2.0, just add 2.0 to our supported versions and move on". > That doesn't ultimately help us promote IPP 2.x, since nothing will have > really changed. However, if we can make IPP really useful by requiring > support for at least one common document format, then IPP can truly be > marketed as an enabling technology rather than being listed along side > AppSocket, LPD, and 50 other "supported" printing protocols. > > In short, let's make IPP more than just a replacement for LPD. > > >> Best Regards, >> >> /Paul >> -- >> Paul Tykodi >> Principal Consultant >> TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC >> >> Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820 >> Mobile: 603-866-0712 >> E-mail: ptykodi@tykodi.com >> WWW: http://www.tykodi.com >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of >>> Michael R Sweet >>> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:26 PM >>> To: ipp@pwg.org >>> Subject: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? >>> >>> All, >>> >>> In today's telecon I brought up a question about whether it would be >>> a benefit to define a set of document formats that devices must >>> support. This would have large benefits for interoperability and the > >>> ability for clients of all shapes and sizes to print without >>> specialized printer drivers. >>> >>> The wording I am thinking of is: >>> >>> REQUIRED DOCUMENT FORMATS >>> >>> IPP v2 devices MUST support one of the following document >>> formats: >>> >>> document-format Details >>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>> application/pdf ISO 32000-1:2008, >>> ISO 19005-1:2005 (PDF/A), >>> or PDF/IS? >>> application/xhtml+xml XHTML-Print >>> image/jpeg W3C JFIF* encapsulation >>> image/png ISO 15948, RFC 2083 >>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>> * http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/jfif3.pdf >>> >>> I have not included application/postscript in the list because it >>> isn't standardized beyond simple page descriptions, both in the >>> official and real-world senses, and in many cases PostScript printers > >>> require some level of device-dependent commands to be used (think PPD > >>> files). >>> >>> Likewise, I have not included image/tiff since TIFF is a catch-all >>> for thousands of sub-formats, and the most common sub-formats >>> (TIFF-G3 and TIFF-G4) are limited to reproduction of monochrome >>> graphics which make them less useful as a general printing format. >>> >>> Comments? >>> >>> -- >>> > ______________________________________________________________________ >>> Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System > Engineer > > > -- > ______________________________________________________________________ > Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer From ipp-owner@pwg.org Thu Jul 31 10:16:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3123F3A6CD4 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:16:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HTIjDDitxdB1 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5666E3A6D10 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VHH07B005394 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:17:02 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6VHGsL0005371 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:17:00 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:15:31 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VHFLCI005013 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:15:23 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6VHFLJD005010 for ipp-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:15:21 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.184]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VHFHeS004976 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:15:19 -0400 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b2so297440nfb.41 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:15:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=iTQ3SYhDDG7iSa622mKzPklR5QEKcTuFlq2XVe/Z8E8=; b=ooUOpIP3c6fE1Ja/ABtJq9A33jhAUE5IchQ5611/7H8jI+XLd54/T4Bx/yyiJvbNXH 31XTl8gM0qqAjzTldv4QxaRoA0hHINdxBGzR3TOugEuex++2TANEMvDkt43nuLuzHqRo +zCCECNEHOqPXX5vYueQx5nFZWuyxjHsD2Qlo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=MyxuuNaU7Ze1TYU8notDfyX7Ln/wPFVdWERPsChQrPr9KmZ2Of70da7baSYvu/JY7v /mEQ+Wmkm8Sgt4sDULpZ0NsXTZ7SRoOur4+SWj5+UU1A+kOcVqqrJGzjIThSMg4ZOWkr SBG1CrAkKewLYzbt5sKSt5BBzuWARqZeN5aFM= Received: by 10.210.39.2 with SMTP id m2mr11274722ebm.97.1217524516441; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.135.19 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:15:16 -0400 From: "Ira McDonald" To: "Michael R Sweet" , "Ira McDonald" Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? Cc: "Farrell, Lee" , ptykodi@tykodi.com, ipp@pwg.org In-Reply-To: <488F1E45.5080203@apple.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4884FEDA.1080706@apple.com> <7E0EDEFA92964B4EA8308B47CC29060F@TCSLAPTOP01> <488E075D.6060103@apple.com> <02954887D466F24D9F3FC9F47466DEF00AA00211@cdaexchange.sc.rd.canon.com> <488F1E45.5080203@apple.com> Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Hi, I sympathize with Mike Sweet's point and Dave Whitehead's comments. However: (1) The IPP WG can charter a new project (e.g., "IPP Required Document Formats") for a new PWG standards-track spec anytime (2) If the IPPv2 project adds ANY new content, then our whole schedule will fall apart completely, because we'll have to show actual prototyping before taking the IPPv2 spec to Formal Vote (3) The PWG Steering Committee remembers all too well the structural error in the Abstract Counters (PWG 5106.1) and Counter MIB (PWG 5106.3) - waving PWG Process and adopting untested new IPP content is NOT going to happen Cheers, - Ira On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Michael R Sweet wrote: > Farrell, Lee wrote: >> >> Before we get too far afield with this discussion topic, let me remind >> everyone of the recently approved update to the IPPv2 Statement of Work >> in which the following is identified: >> >> Out-of-scope: >> * OSS-1 New IPP functionality or features MUST NOT be included >> in this IPP/2.x specification. >> * OSS-2 Details of IPP commands, attributes, or other features >> MUST NOT be included in this IPP/2.x specification, except as needed >> (e.g., references to attributes REQUIRED by newly REQUIRED operations. >> >> >> I think defining a mandatory document format would qualify as a "New IPP >> functionality". > > While I agree that it is out-of-scope for the current SOW, I'd also > propose that we change the SOW. > > Right now we are putting together a wonderful combination of the > IPP/1.1 specs to make new "unified" 2.x specs, but the main problem > is that either vendors will ignore 2.x (why add media standardized > names when we only support our proprietary PDL with no overrides) > or have already implemented everything needed for 2.x. IPP will > remain only as an "LPD replacement" and be no more useful than LPD. > > However, if we tackle adding required document formats, then we > have effectively "raised the bar" to make IPP something more > compelling. More importantly, it will be something marketable, > both in the home/small office and corporate spaces. > > Multi-function devices already outsell regular printers by a > significant margin, and most come with support for direct-connect > printing from embedded devices (cameras, phones, etc.) via > PictBridge. There is no equivalent for networked printers, and > since smart phones and other embedded devices are in wide use it > would be nice to support printing from them... > >> lee >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Michael >> R Sweet >> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:52 PM >> To: ptykodi@tykodi.com >> Cc: ipp@pwg.org >> Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? >> >> Paul Tykodi wrote: >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> As far as I know, IPP support is slowly working its way into network >>> printer interfaces for the label printing niche (both impact and direct >>> thermal/thermal transfer print technologies) and into some of the dot matrix >>> printer NIC's as well. >>> >>> These types of printers do not support the same document formats as the >>> inkjet and laser technology based printers. >>> >>> If IPP were to become involved with specifying document formats, I think >>> it would be a good idea to create a separate IPP document formats track with >>> its own RFC or PWG based specification that could be referenced by the ippv2 >>> documents. >> >> Well, the PWG already had done a lot of work in this area, including >> XHTML-Print. There are other groups that have standardized on JPEG for >> consumer devices (PictBridge and others), the ISO and IETF have >> standards for PNG, and of course the ISO has defined PDF profiles. >> I don't think the problem is having a standard or referencing other >> standards! >> >> These formats are already supported by a wide variety of devices in >> different ways - it would be nice to guarantee support for at least one >> common format in every IPP 2.x printer, as it solves a major >> (IMHO) problem with IPP that the PWG hasn't yet tackled - all printers >> require a device-specific client-side printer driver to do even basic >> printing. >> >> If IPP 2.x printers did support one (or all) of the formats I've listed, >> then a customer would know they could print from any client. >> Obviously there would still be a use for device-specific drivers, e.g. >> higher speed print modes and support for complex jobs, but >> *basic* printing (email, web pages, photos) could be done without all of >> that. >> >> IMHO, adding a (short) list of required document-formats to IPP 2.x will >> just make it *more* compelling as a standard. Right now we are just >> stapling all of the different IPP specs together to make profiles - >> chances are most vendors will look at their product and say "we already >> conform to IPP 2.0, just add 2.0 to our supported versions and move on". >> That doesn't ultimately help us promote IPP 2.x, since nothing will have >> really changed. However, if we can make IPP really useful by requiring >> support for at least one common document format, then IPP can truly be >> marketed as an enabling technology rather than being listed along side >> AppSocket, LPD, and 50 other "supported" printing protocols. >> >> In short, let's make IPP more than just a replacement for LPD. >> >> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> /Paul >>> -- >>> Paul Tykodi >>> Principal Consultant >>> TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC >>> >>> Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820 >>> Mobile: 603-866-0712 >>> E-mail: ptykodi@tykodi.com >>> WWW: http://www.tykodi.com >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Michael >>>> R Sweet >>>> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:26 PM >>>> To: ipp@pwg.org >>>> Subject: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> In today's telecon I brought up a question about whether it would be a >>>> benefit to define a set of document formats that devices must support. This >>>> would have large benefits for interoperability and the >> >>>> ability for clients of all shapes and sizes to print without specialized >>>> printer drivers. >>>> >>>> The wording I am thinking of is: >>>> >>>> REQUIRED DOCUMENT FORMATS >>>> >>>> IPP v2 devices MUST support one of the following document >>>> formats: >>>> >>>> document-format Details >>>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>>> application/pdf ISO 32000-1:2008, >>>> ISO 19005-1:2005 (PDF/A), >>>> or PDF/IS? >>>> application/xhtml+xml XHTML-Print >>>> image/jpeg W3C JFIF* encapsulation >>>> image/png ISO 15948, RFC 2083 >>>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>>> * http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/jfif3.pdf >>>> >>>> I have not included application/postscript in the list because it isn't >>>> standardized beyond simple page descriptions, both in the official and >>>> real-world senses, and in many cases PostScript printers >> >>>> require some level of device-dependent commands to be used (think PPD >> >>>> files). >>>> >>>> Likewise, I have not included image/tiff since TIFF is a catch-all for >>>> thousands of sub-formats, and the most common sub-formats >>>> (TIFF-G3 and TIFF-G4) are limited to reproduction of monochrome graphics >>>> which make them less useful as a general printing format. >>>> >>>> Comments? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System >> >> Engineer >> >> >> -- >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer > > > -- > ______________________________________________________________________ > Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer > -- Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Blue Roof Music/High North Inc email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com winter: 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 summer: PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 From ipp-owner@pwg.org Thu Jul 31 10:30:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C06AA28C283 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:30:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YBQbpbgxev6Q for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:30:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D042928C223 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VHUsmQ008981 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:30:56 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6VHUset008978 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:30:54 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:29:53 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VHTm8x008472 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:29:50 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6VHTmOb008469 for ipp-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:29:48 -0400 Received: from psmtp.com (exprod8ob118.obsmtp.com [64.18.3.35]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VHThOr008452; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:29:45 -0400 Received: from source ([192.146.101.7]) by exprod8ob118.postini.com ([64.18.7.12]) with SMTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:29:39 PDT Received: from lxkssmtp2e.lex.lexmark.com (smtp5b.notes.lexmark.com [157.184.50.112]) by smtp02a.notes.lexmark.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACB2C1380D5; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:27:05 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? To: "Ira McDonald" Cc: "Ira McDonald" , ipp@pwg.org, "Farrell, Lee" , "Michael R Sweet" , owner-ipp@pwg.org, ptykodi@tykodi.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.5 November 30, 2005 Message-ID: From: Dave Whitehead Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:29:43 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on smtp5b/Lex/Lexmark(Release 6.5.5|November 30, 2005) at 07/31/2008 13:29:34 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org I think option 1 may be the way to proceed (if that's what we want to do!) since it would then be just another document we reference in the IPPv2x document. dhw "Ira McDonald" To Sent by: "Michael R Sweet" owner-ipp@pwg.org , "Ira McDonald" cc 07/31/2008 01:15 "Farrell, Lee" PM , ptykodi@tykodi.com, ipp@pwg.org Subject Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? Hi, I sympathize with Mike Sweet's point and Dave Whitehead's comments. However: (1) The IPP WG can charter a new project (e.g., "IPP Required Document Formats") for a new PWG standards-track spec anytime (2) If the IPPv2 project adds ANY new content, then our whole schedule will fall apart completely, because we'll have to show actual prototyping before taking the IPPv2 spec to Formal Vote (3) The PWG Steering Committee remembers all too well the structural error in the Abstract Counters (PWG 5106.1) and Counter MIB (PWG 5106.3) - waving PWG Process and adopting untested new IPP content is NOT going to happen Cheers, - Ira On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Michael R Sweet wrote: > Farrell, Lee wrote: >> >> Before we get too far afield with this discussion topic, let me remind >> everyone of the recently approved update to the IPPv2 Statement of Work >> in which the following is identified: >> >> Out-of-scope: >> * OSS-1 New IPP functionality or features MUST NOT be included >> in this IPP/2.x specification. >> * OSS-2 Details of IPP commands, attributes, or other features >> MUST NOT be included in this IPP/2.x specification, except as needed >> (e.g., references to attributes REQUIRED by newly REQUIRED operations. >> >> >> I think defining a mandatory document format would qualify as a "New IPP >> functionality". > > While I agree that it is out-of-scope for the current SOW, I'd also > propose that we change the SOW. > > Right now we are putting together a wonderful combination of the > IPP/1.1 specs to make new "unified" 2.x specs, but the main problem > is that either vendors will ignore 2.x (why add media standardized > names when we only support our proprietary PDL with no overrides) > or have already implemented everything needed for 2.x. IPP will > remain only as an "LPD replacement" and be no more useful than LPD. > > However, if we tackle adding required document formats, then we > have effectively "raised the bar" to make IPP something more > compelling. More importantly, it will be something marketable, > both in the home/small office and corporate spaces. > > Multi-function devices already outsell regular printers by a > significant margin, and most come with support for direct-connect > printing from embedded devices (cameras, phones, etc.) via > PictBridge. There is no equivalent for networked printers, and > since smart phones and other embedded devices are in wide use it > would be nice to support printing from them... > >> lee >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Michael >> R Sweet >> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:52 PM >> To: ptykodi@tykodi.com >> Cc: ipp@pwg.org >> Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? >> >> Paul Tykodi wrote: >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> As far as I know, IPP support is slowly working its way into network >>> printer interfaces for the label printing niche (both impact and direct >>> thermal/thermal transfer print technologies) and into some of the dot matrix >>> printer NIC's as well. >>> >>> These types of printers do not support the same document formats as the >>> inkjet and laser technology based printers. >>> >>> If IPP were to become involved with specifying document formats, I think >>> it would be a good idea to create a separate IPP document formats track with >>> its own RFC or PWG based specification that could be referenced by the ippv2 >>> documents. >> >> Well, the PWG already had done a lot of work in this area, including >> XHTML-Print. There are other groups that have standardized on JPEG for >> consumer devices (PictBridge and others), the ISO and IETF have >> standards for PNG, and of course the ISO has defined PDF profiles. >> I don't think the problem is having a standard or referencing other >> standards! >> >> These formats are already supported by a wide variety of devices in >> different ways - it would be nice to guarantee support for at least one >> common format in every IPP 2.x printer, as it solves a major >> (IMHO) problem with IPP that the PWG hasn't yet tackled - all printers >> require a device-specific client-side printer driver to do even basic >> printing. >> >> If IPP 2.x printers did support one (or all) of the formats I've listed, >> then a customer would know they could print from any client. >> Obviously there would still be a use for device-specific drivers, e.g. >> higher speed print modes and support for complex jobs, but >> *basic* printing (email, web pages, photos) could be done without all of >> that. >> >> IMHO, adding a (short) list of required document-formats to IPP 2.x will >> just make it *more* compelling as a standard. Right now we are just >> stapling all of the different IPP specs together to make profiles - >> chances are most vendors will look at their product and say "we already >> conform to IPP 2.0, just add 2.0 to our supported versions and move on". >> That doesn't ultimately help us promote IPP 2.x, since nothing will have >> really changed. However, if we can make IPP really useful by requiring >> support for at least one common document format, then IPP can truly be >> marketed as an enabling technology rather than being listed along side >> AppSocket, LPD, and 50 other "supported" printing protocols. >> >> In short, let's make IPP more than just a replacement for LPD. >> >> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> /Paul >>> -- >>> Paul Tykodi >>> Principal Consultant >>> TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC >>> >>> Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820 >>> Mobile: 603-866-0712 >>> E-mail: ptykodi@tykodi.com >>> WWW: http://www.tykodi.com >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Michael >>>> R Sweet >>>> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:26 PM >>>> To: ipp@pwg.org >>>> Subject: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> In today's telecon I brought up a question about whether it would be a >>>> benefit to define a set of document formats that devices must support. This >>>> would have large benefits for interoperability and the >> >>>> ability for clients of all shapes and sizes to print without specialized >>>> printer drivers. >>>> >>>> The wording I am thinking of is: >>>> >>>> REQUIRED DOCUMENT FORMATS >>>> >>>> IPP v2 devices MUST support one of the following document >>>> formats: >>>> >>>> document-format Details >>>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>>> application/pdf ISO 32000-1:2008, >>>> ISO 19005-1:2005 (PDF/A), >>>> or PDF/IS? >>>> application/xhtml+xml XHTML-Print >>>> image/jpeg W3C JFIF* encapsulation >>>> image/png ISO 15948, RFC 2083 >>>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>>> * http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/jfif3.pdf >>>> >>>> I have not included application/postscript in the list because it isn't >>>> standardized beyond simple page descriptions, both in the official and >>>> real-world senses, and in many cases PostScript printers >> >>>> require some level of device-dependent commands to be used (think PPD >> >>>> files). >>>> >>>> Likewise, I have not included image/tiff since TIFF is a catch-all for >>>> thousands of sub-formats, and the most common sub-formats >>>> (TIFF-G3 and TIFF-G4) are limited to reproduction of monochrome graphics >>>> which make them less useful as a general printing format. >>>> >>>> Comments? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System >> >> Engineer >> >> >> -- >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer > > > -- > ______________________________________________________________________ > Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer > -- Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Blue Roof Music/High North Inc email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com winter: 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 summer: PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 From ipp-owner@pwg.org Thu Jul 31 10:58:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2E8C28C20F for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:58:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9tVOSHKdXkWL for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16D528C20B for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VHwox1017021 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:58:52 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6VHwmVR017007 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:58:50 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:57:50 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VHvkNq016618 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:57:48 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6VHvk0Q016615 for ipp-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:57:46 -0400 Received: from mail-out3.apple.com (mail-out3.apple.com [17.254.13.22]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VHvgXT016607 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:57:45 -0400 Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36E834D42E3; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay11.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay11.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id B567028091; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:57:41 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807130-a9b90bb000000ead-76-4891fd1583b1 Received: from mbp.local (unknown [17.151.118.224]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 4113428084; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4891FD13.1070600@apple.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:57:39 -0700 From: Michael R Sweet Organization: Apple Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ira McDonald CC: "Farrell, Lee" , ptykodi@tykodi.com, ipp@pwg.org Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? References: <4884FEDA.1080706@apple.com> <7E0EDEFA92964B4EA8308B47CC29060F@TCSLAPTOP01> <488E075D.6060103@apple.com> <02954887D466F24D9F3FC9F47466DEF00AA00211@cdaexchange.sc.rd.canon.com> <488F1E45.5080203@apple.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Ira McDonald wrote: > Hi, > > I sympathize with Mike Sweet's point and Dave Whitehead's comments. > However: > > (1) The IPP WG can charter a new project (e.g., "IPP Required Document > Formats") for a new PWG standards-track spec anytime > > (2) If the IPPv2 project adds ANY new content, then our whole schedule will > fall apart completely, because we'll have to show actual prototyping before > taking the IPPv2 spec to Formal Vote Ira: Change the schedule. Putting out useless specs that nobody will use is a waste of time. We're already adding new content - new version numbers - and there is significant effort needed for interoperability and conformance testing. Adding requirements for supported document formats (all of which are already in ISO, IETF, PWG, or W3C approved standards) will actually make that testing *easier* since then we won't need to use vendor-specific drivers to create content suitable for the device to the tested! > (3) The PWG Steering Committee remembers all too well the structural error > in the Abstract Counters (PWG 5106.1) and Counter MIB (PWG 5106.3) > - waving PWG Process and adopting untested new IPP content is NOT > going to happen Then IMHO IPP/2.x will be as much of a failure as IPP/1.1 has. I say that IPP/1.1 is a failure because few vendors provide full support for it, and even then it is only for a handful of devices. Even fewer support "generic" document formats like PDF, making it impossible to realize the dream of universal network printing. Interoperability is a serious problem, in part because some vendors never went beyond IPP/1.0 (Microsoft, Linksys, others), only support HTTP/1.0 (HP), or have serious bugs in their IPP implementations causing printers and network cards to hang (every vendor). I am convinced that if we put out another IPP standard that does nothing to address supporting standard/generic document formats, then there will be no compelling reason for any vendor to adopt IPP/2.x because it will not significantly improve interoperability or open up new markets/opportunities. Put simply, I think we need to provide an IPP/2.x spec that will help vendors sell more printers. -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer From ipp-owner@pwg.org Thu Jul 31 11:03:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB80328C16D for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:03:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y8papQzJVELU for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7BE028C154 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VI3diC018928 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:03:41 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6VI3dvj018925 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:03:39 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:02:45 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VI2fpq018383 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:02:43 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6VI2ekK018380 for ipp-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:02:40 -0400 Received: from mail-out3.apple.com (mail-out3.apple.com [17.254.13.22]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VI2cS1018348; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:02:40 -0400 Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43BDA34D44BD; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay11.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay11.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 23BDE28094; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:02:20 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807130-a938fbb000000ead-db-4891fe2be990 Received: from mbp.local (unknown [17.151.118.224]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id A1DA728097; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:02:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4891FE2A.7040903@apple.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:02:18 -0700 From: Michael R Sweet Organization: Apple Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Whitehead CC: Ira McDonald , ipp@pwg.org, "Farrell, Lee" , owner-ipp@pwg.org, ptykodi@tykodi.com Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Dave Whitehead wrote: > I think option 1 may be the way to proceed (if that's what we want to do!) > since it would then be just another document we reference in the IPPv2x > document. But won't option 1 (write a new standard, reference it in IPP/2.x) still require prototyping, etc? Plus, I don't see how we are getting around the prototype requirements for 2.x - we *are* adding new content WRT version numbers, and that requires prototyping to do any kind of testing/validation between implementations. -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer From ipp-owner@pwg.org Thu Jul 31 11:46:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 451D43A6D20 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:46:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rTn8u2FkVuKE for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:46:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E191F3A6D1C for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:46:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VIl0aI029688 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:47:02 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6VIl0bd029685 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:47:00 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:45:59 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VIjtad029360 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:45:57 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6VIjtOr029357 for ipp-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:45:55 -0400 Received: from psmtp.com (exprod8ob115.obsmtp.com [64.18.3.29]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VIjnL2029338; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:45:52 -0400 Received: from source ([192.146.101.7]) by exprod8ob115.postini.com ([64.18.7.12]) with SMTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:45:44 PDT Received: from lxkssmtp2e.lex.lexmark.com (smtp5b.notes.lexmark.com [157.184.50.112]) by smtp02a.notes.lexmark.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E587CB8073; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:19:43 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <4891FE2A.7040903@apple.com> Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? To: Michael R Sweet Cc: Ira McDonald , ipp@pwg.org, "Farrell, Lee" , owner-ipp@pwg.org, ptykodi@tykodi.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.5 November 30, 2005 Message-ID: From: Dave Whitehead Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:22:20 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on smtp5b/Lex/Lexmark(Release 6.5.5|November 30, 2005) at 07/31/2008 14:22:13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org If we can agree to the correct document format, prototyping could be a matter of minutes. dhw Michael R Sweet To Dave Whitehead 07/31/2008 02:02 cc PM Ira McDonald , ipp@pwg.org, "Farrell, Lee" , owner-ipp@pwg.org, ptykodi@tykodi.com Subject Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? Dave Whitehead wrote: > I think option 1 may be the way to proceed (if that's what we want to do!) > since it would then be just another document we reference in the IPPv2x > document. But won't option 1 (write a new standard, reference it in IPP/2.x) still require prototyping, etc? Plus, I don't see how we are getting around the prototype requirements for 2.x - we *are* adding new content WRT version numbers, and that requires prototyping to do any kind of testing/validation between implementations. -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer From ipp-owner@pwg.org Thu Jul 31 12:32:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD5A3A6D1C for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:32:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.930, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X05z5PXAS4w0 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6701C3A6AF9 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VJWVwe007128 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:32:33 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6VJWVvG007125 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:32:31 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:31:34 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VJVTu0006771 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:31:31 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6VJVTlO006768 for ipp-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:31:29 -0400 Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com (ik-out-1112.google.com [66.249.90.178]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VJVQAZ006759 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:31:29 -0400 Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c29so695428ika.7 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:31:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=jvQCnNl5YyDD42X4dg+ES8bIO82Cw7ILyBF9APtUNHA=; b=VzSAjwJrdq18udlEzXEnLnekLwtGjXjiejFkGkuPnFA79Jz09tj4inoZiHFF4GVwSa nom8kFD9GnR7sk04XYYW9Z4olFAiqGoF0mwM7ul/HdiBaIHdAuehfuCV5N8w6C1PDK8o 1tMbo+6SBzFR8yJ7hO8D7VYxi24kMkDCLItVg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=RWc1dOTCvxBiyHmvCGLO8Qkzoj08pHfZKCz+GVUfZVqjIbfJbrqwZVRCe9FDB29ofl wRHos3HmGaM3etOtkX5if+WlRLVQc3buZszw6poSZJwmCdR4HmbJmNoGEQABe709VE/K jUvxisrm9yAfYyzndDuSZDpqONT994Tk7Q3x8= Received: by 10.210.131.6 with SMTP id e6mr11473229ebd.10.1217532685892; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.135.19 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:31:25 -0400 From: "Ira McDonald" To: "Dave Whitehead" , "Ira McDonald" Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? Cc: "Michael R Sweet" , ipp@pwg.org, "Farrell, Lee" , owner-ipp@pwg.org, ptykodi@tykodi.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4891FE2A.7040903@apple.com> Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Hi, I agree with Dave Whitehead that required document formats (or any other new IPP requirements) belong in a separate standards-track PWG spec. Prototyping in the PWG Process does NOT require any interoperability testing at all. It's just a partial implementation (no minimum content) by a single vendor. Interoperability testing (AFTER approval of specs) is also part of the PWG Process but is NOT required to bring a document to Formal Approval vote as a Candidate Standard (unlike IETF and many other standards bodies). For IPP2x versions, a prototype could be one printer in a lab with a test client. I also agree that prototyping *some* required IPP document formats could be trivially accomplished. If we need new IPP projects, then so be it. But please let's not destroy the chance of IPP2x by introducing new content and breaking the concensus to proceed that was based on no new content. IPP/1.0 implementations DO NOT conform to IPP/1.1 and WILL NOT conform to IPP/2.0 - end of story. Cheers, - Ira On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Dave Whitehead wrote: > If we can agree to the correct document format, prototyping could be a > matter of minutes. > > dhw > > > > > Michael R Sweet > > To > Dave Whitehead > 07/31/2008 02:02 cc > PM Ira McDonald > , > ipp@pwg.org, "Farrell, Lee" > , > owner-ipp@pwg.org, > ptykodi@tykodi.com > Subject > Re: IPP> RFC: Add required > document-format values for IPP v2? > > > > > > > > > > Dave Whitehead wrote: >> I think option 1 may be the way to proceed (if that's what we want to > do!) >> since it would then be just another document we reference in the IPPv2x >> document. > > But won't option 1 (write a new standard, reference it in IPP/2.x) > still require prototyping, etc? > > Plus, I don't see how we are getting around the prototype requirements > for 2.x - we *are* adding new content WRT version numbers, and that > requires prototyping to do any kind of testing/validation between > implementations. > > -- > ______________________________________________________________________ > Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer > > -- Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Blue Roof Music/High North Inc email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com winter: 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 summer: PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 From ipp-owner@pwg.org Thu Jul 31 14:08:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D4893A68AC for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:08:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5vRDHZURp94I for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8498F3A679F for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VL8lQx023793 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:08:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6VL8lPO023790 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:08:47 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:07:47 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VL7hiq023496 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:07:45 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6VL7hXT023493 for ipp-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:07:43 -0400 Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VL7eXF023485; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:07:42 -0400 Received: from relay12.apple.com (relay12.apple.com [17.128.113.53]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF2D43662C11; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay12.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay12.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id B5312464002; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:07:39 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807135-a45eebb000001321-54-4892299ba4ba Received: from mbp.local (unknown [17.151.119.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay12.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 411F2420005; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4892299A.5090502@apple.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:07:38 -0700 From: Michael R Sweet Organization: Apple Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ira McDonald CC: Dave Whitehead , ipp@pwg.org, "Farrell, Lee" , owner-ipp@pwg.org, ptykodi@tykodi.com Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? References: <4891FE2A.7040903@apple.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Ira McDonald wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Dave Whitehead that required document formats (or any other > new IPP requirements) belong in a separate standards-track PWG spec. Again, we're already changing the ipp-versions-supported and the IPP header to have 2.x version numbers. Doing a separate spec that is literally 8 pages of boilerplate and 1 page of real content seems like a lot of overhead for this! > Prototyping in the PWG Process does NOT require any interoperability testing > at all. It's just a partial implementation (no minimum content) by a > single vendor. Keep in mind that CUPS already supports 3 out of the 4 formats I've proposed. However, I'd argue that we need at least one printer vendor to implement it as well... Also, given the mess we have today, I think we really (really!) need to do interop testing and come up with a standard test suite that vendors can use to self-validate. (CUPS already has much of this in its "make check" automated tests to validate its IPP/1.1 conformance) > ... > If we need new IPP projects, then so be it. But please let's not destroy the > chance of IPP2x by introducing new content and breaking the concensus > to proceed that was based on no new content. IPP/2.x with no required document formats is no better than IPP/1.1. > IPP/1.0 implementations DO NOT conform to IPP/1.1 and WILL NOT conform > to IPP/2.0 - end of story. True. The question is, who will upgrade to IPP/2.0 if there is no compelling reason to do so? -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer From ipp-owner@pwg.org Thu Jul 31 16:57:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6B128C334 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:57:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RsEub7UQKTM8 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF4ED28C30A for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:57:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VNv19j012363 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:57:03 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m6VNv16f012360 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:57:01 -0400 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:56:02 -0400 Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VNtwip012100 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:56:00 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m6VNtwas012097 for ipp-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:55:58 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.190]) by pwg.org with ESMTP id m6VNtsqq012088 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:55:57 -0400 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b2so379008nfb.41 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:55:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=5wmvnxGHmGH5PWt2RiY4M+bLoNKV97TKnM1VQtO2fqM=; b=gsyBovwS5hng88u9KVysoUCArGZPVa7G0KnOVG6Z2FGaMZnN9kMWXXrMwvhBISXZbx IYprjlRx1r0Kqo7Y9xEOoio4Ipbtqe+O35tHyXIAJf3kb7UO1PM6ljs2X2U9LZJAWO3Q DZZz/3nktwRxk3DCuNeFmH9IAhB9xm018537o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=UsHQC2yBF4Qj8f0P/P8+oQGBdtpo6FSb53cPOcbS0hFubgdP1n25j+f6pmjzdGYEhB 7Ja0Wam2DiGEDYVLGqrVasHd/z4NeX4joU/WKai7Bdm8mr1x1YbJi/YxEsYDazUfswTA DLWqEu7ANvT91OiWSeBF4EBP9HM/7UVQSHszw= Received: by 10.210.109.10 with SMTP id h10mr11634035ebc.194.1217548554463; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:55:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.135.19 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:55:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:55:54 -0400 From: "Ira McDonald" To: "Michael R Sweet" , "Ira McDonald" Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2? Cc: "Dave Whitehead" , ipp@pwg.org, "Farrell, Lee" , owner-ipp@pwg.org, ptykodi@tykodi.com In-Reply-To: <4892299A.5090502@apple.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4891FE2A.7040903@apple.com> <4892299A.5090502@apple.com> Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org Hi Mike, I concede that we should add required document formats to IPP/2.0. I just re-read your note at the start of this thread and I realized that you said "MUST support *one* of the following [four] document formats", which works just fine, since document-format-supported is a REQUIRED attribute for all IPP Printers. I agree you've picked the right four formats for best simple printing interworking. As you say, this gives much more meat than PWG MSN names and (supposedly) correct protocol implementation to IPP/2.0 - the customer has a simple reason to look for the new conformance claim. Cheers, - Ira On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Michael R Sweet wrote: > Ira McDonald wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I agree with Dave Whitehead that required document formats (or any other >> new IPP requirements) belong in a separate standards-track PWG spec. > > Again, we're already changing the ipp-versions-supported and the IPP > header to have 2.x version numbers. Doing a separate spec that is > literally 8 pages of boilerplate and 1 page of real content seems like > a lot of overhead for this! > >> Prototyping in the PWG Process does NOT require any interoperability >> testing >> at all. It's just a partial implementation (no minimum content) by a >> single vendor. > > Keep in mind that CUPS already supports 3 out of the 4 formats I've > proposed. However, I'd argue that we need at least one printer > vendor to implement it as well... > > Also, given the mess we have today, I think we really (really!) need > to do interop testing and come up with a standard test suite that > vendors can use to self-validate. (CUPS already has much of this in > its "make check" automated tests to validate its IPP/1.1 conformance) > >> ... >> If we need new IPP projects, then so be it. But please let's not destroy >> the >> chance of IPP2x by introducing new content and breaking the concensus >> to proceed that was based on no new content. > > IPP/2.x with no required document formats is no better than IPP/1.1. > >> IPP/1.0 implementations DO NOT conform to IPP/1.1 and WILL NOT conform >> to IPP/2.0 - end of story. > > True. The question is, who will upgrade to IPP/2.0 if there is no > compelling reason to do so? > > -- > ______________________________________________________________________ > Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer > -- Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Blue Roof Music/High North Inc email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com winter: 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 summer: PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434