Internet Printer Protocol 145
Ok, I don't own a printer, but some of you guys might
still use that outdated paper thing. Here is an article about
the
Internet Printer Protocol (IPP)
which is being touted now as the latest greatest in allowing
people to print over the internet. Odd. I did it all
the time when I was writing papers and stuff.
Printers with a webpage (Score:1)
Also, I don't like (Web)JetAdmin. It does nasty things to our network, putting junk in the ARP tables.
About Time... had this in '85 (Score:1)
System Level Printer Drivers for the OS only took 4 years after it was standardized on the Mac. Before that, we had every app had to support a kajillion Printers (one set for WordStar, one set for AutoCAD, one set for dBase...).
System level Standardized Outline Fonts took another 4 years... in another 2-3 years we should almost be at the same spot we were at in '86!
The slow rate of techinical progress never ceases to amaze me.
Lam! (Score:1)
Why this is a good thing and not a bad thing (Score:1)
Actually, it turns out that LPD isn't much of a standard at all - check out RFC 1179. The second sentence reads "This memo is for informational purposes only, and does not specify an Internet standard."
And remember, IPP is just a certain dialect of HTTP. It's no more or less secure than LPD - just a little more understandable to the general public, so junk printing shouldn't be any more of a problem.
The only reason they mention FAXing in the article is because that's the only way most people can relate to remote printing. Remember that the denominator CNN is addressing is pretty low.
IPP has the potential to be a good new printing standard, and the Linux community has the chance to build a good IPP infrastructure WAY before the windows community does. Implementing IPP really isn't very hard.
Kick some Redmond butt, people.
Kurt Werle
kwerle@pobox.com
That's a model file problem (Score:1)
As for parsing PPD files, I don't know why someone hasn't written a generic PPD parser already. While the PPD syntax is fairly bletcherous, it's fairly easy to get around the worst of all that with flex and bison. Interfacing your print subsystem directly to the parser might be kind of nasty (lpr -P acmeps -O 'tray="Optional Envelope Feeder"' envelopes.ps, anyone?)
Real LPRng URL... (Score:1)
Jason
Printers with a webpage! www.my-hp-and-pr0n.com (Score:1)
And, second
Whats up with this assigning-web-addresses-to-printers crap? I mean, you know some loser is going to start buying up addresses for his printer, www.freds-printer1.com www.freds-printer2.com (etc), and then ACTUAL names of things might show up (like, maybe one day www.microsoft.com could point to my grandpa's ole 8 pin dot matrix?
Either way, I don't think that being able to give web addresses to a friggin printer is in the least bit smart. Having the ability to type www.a-big-fat-printer.com and see a web page that may (or may not) be customized by its owner, is simply wrong. Printers are printers, computers are computers, and fax machines...well...they're just confused.
Obiwan
Current safety of networked printers... (Score:2)
A standard for networked printers rocks. The de-facto lpd `standard' is not secure and is often incorrectly implemented. Check the Apple color laser printers for an example. They run their own lpd internally, and it doesn't talk too well to both NT and various Unices' default lpd. It also denies you the ability to manage its queue. Suck.
Oh, and PostScript level 3 includes the facility to send a URL to the printer and have the printer fetch the document (WebReady Printing [adobe.com], although I can't find anything in the language reference). Betcha most of y'all never noticed that. I just wish there was an independently controlled standard for page descriptions. Good laser printers would be much cheaper without the Adobe PS license. There are a few non-Adobe PS-compatible alternatives, but Adobe controls true PostScript. They do cool stuff for printers (job ticketing for large volume printers, lots of other workflow support, PNG support), but I really like independent standards.
Jason, ejr@cs.berkeley.edu, who thinks the reference to Intel (r) NT [adobe.com] (at the bottom) is kinda funny...
Oh, and LPRng 4.x.x is to support IPP... (Score:2)
Avoid NIH and help an extant (and very good) project.
Jason
Pascal (Score:1)
repeat
inc(i);
write(lst,#12,i);
until billisgay; {don't ask}
If so, that loop will only execute once. From the context in which the code appears, I think you're wrong -- the opposite sense is intended.
Jet Direct already uses TCP/IP (Score:1)
Here's the
hplaser|lp0:\
I'm currently failing to see why I'd want to do this though... I can't even imagine how fast I'd go through toner if fax spammers no longer had to pay for their phone calls. Interesting idea, but I'd have to pop myself into the naysayer category.
Clear-text passwords (Score:1)
You're right about printer security, but AppleShare file sharing works pretty well. Passwords are only clear-text if somebody doesn't support encryption (and netatalk doesn't, for the same reason encrypted passwords are obnoxious to set up in samba). If you've got two Macs talking to each other, they'll use two-way encryption (and they'll tell you that before you type in your password).
As an added bonus, AppleShare IP runs over TCP/IP instead of AppleTalk.
It'd be pretty cool if Macs could print over TCP/IP too (that would be really funny after reading this article) but they only print over AppleTalk, which is pretty much confined to local networks (much like IPX).
Eventually I'll get lpd set up on my box and end all problems...
Why this is a good thing and not a bad thing (Score:1)
Wow, SPAM marketers must love this (Score:1)
Geek Alert (Score:1)
Result: Windows users with the ability to print to remote printers using only existing protocols and the standard "Print" option in their apps.
SPAM (Score:1)
I live in europe, how am i gonna sue some spammer in Germany or US ? For the moment in Europe you can't win a trial as easily as in the US and got damage compensation that huge...
As for a guy that sued his hairdresserand won 2 Million $.. forgot where I read it... well even if not true(forgive me if I'm wrong, I don't really know any other law than my countries
Oh Boy! - missing the point (Score:1)
Printers with a webpage (Score:1)
CLUELESSNESS! (Score:3)
That's exactly what it means. IPP Printers are referred to either as http:// for IPP v1.0, or ipp:// for IPP v1.1. In case you're interested, the TCP port pointed at by the ipp: scheme is 631.
How about ``A system administrator could manage his printers from a hotel room.'' Haven't these guys heard of lpq(8)/telnet(1)? Geesh.
Do you really want to expose those services over the public internet? Maybe if your printer supports ssh this will work, but with IPP you get management capabilities through a nice GUI (or text or however it's implemented) interface over a secure, authenticated connection.
Don't let this bit of CNN reporting dissuade you from IPP, however, because it looks like it will fix some of my pet peeves with Berkeley lpd(8)--namely, no decent authentication, no queue management in the protocol beyond deleting jobs, and no thought given to the actual format of the transported data (you've got to either use Postscript queues or raw text queues or use specific printer drivers on all clients).
IPP will support several authentication schemes, depending upon the client and server platforms.
IPP lets you specify the document-format attribute in the print job; it can be PostScript, pcl, text, printer driver output (e.g "octet-stream" type), or whatever other MIME types the printer supports. The printer will intelligently reject unsupported document formats sent to it, and you can query the printer ahead of time as to what it supports.
It should be noted that most expensive printers with network connections already support LPR and many support a strange feature where you can `print' HTML files (it's called ``Web printing'').
That's still supported in IPP (via the print-URI operation). Unfortunately not every OS supports lpr, and as you've pointed out there are big flaws in lpr that make it difficult to use over public networks.
Sounds Lame (Score:1)
Why? (Score:1)
How this could be a good thing (Score:1)
Because otherwise you will have to install many different drivers in your winblows box: PS, PCL, epson, canon, etc..
And better control access.
But people already print too much. We need better displays, not printers..
SDK Available.. (Score:2)
Linux IPP already available.. (Score:2)
LPR - dodgy (Score:1)
Now, I couldn't care less about printing across the internet (as opposed to the IP LAN) (mail it, and the person who'll use the hardcopy can print it if they so wish), but I know sysadmins who'd love to be able to do (more) maintenance remotely.
--
Gawd. (Score:1)
Of course, I'm looking forward to the day I step into a corporate office building and hundreds of pages of "u H4v3 b33n 0wn3d" are printing on like 3 different floors. ...You've always gotta look at the comic up-side to things.
Printers with a webpage (Score:5)
Also, there were pointers to the manufacturer's webpage so that you could reorder supplies, get questions answered, and so on. To me, this seemed to be the perfect integration of "dumb" devices and the power of the WWW. I'm glad to see that, at least for printers, there is an evolving standard for this stuff.
Think a bit and extend the idea: disk drives with a webpage (giving usage stats, error rates)
Stan
Mapping between LPD and IPP (Score:1)
Wow, SPAM marketers must love this (Score:1)
What I don't like is the idea being able to print to devices on the internet. I already get way to much spam emailed to me, I don't need it printed to my printer automatically. If I can securely control this feature it may be ok, but that wasn't specified in the article. I realize the article had zero technical content but quite frankly I wouldn't be at all suprised if this ends up being another 'feature' that can be invisibly turned on.
I suppose I'm in some luck, I use two operating systems for personal use, and neither of them is made by MicroSoft.
Wallace is an ex-spammer (Score:1)
in the hands of microsoft? (Score:1)
Oh Boy! (Score:1)
Actually, a nice standard would be good, but what is bothering me is that Microsoft is going to use this as another reason for people to go to Windows 2000. Uhm.. simple driver, no?
Wonder if it will work with my old daisy wheel :-)
Sounds Lame-VERY lame (Score:1)
uses printer;
var i:longint; billisgay:boolean;
begin
repeat
inc(i);
write(lst,#12,i);
until billisgay; {don't ask}
end.
Hacking printers. Neato.
Stand-alone printer? (Score:1)
Problems (Score:2)
---snip---
The IPP Model document defines an IPP implementation with "privacy" as
one that implements Secure Socket Layer Version 3 (SSL3). Note: SSL3
is not an IETF standards track specification. SSL3 meets the
requirements for IPP security with regards to features such as mutual
authentication and privacy (via encryption). The IPP Model document also
outlines IPP-specific security considerations and should be the primary
reference for security implications with regards to the IPP protocol
itself.
The IPP Model document defines an IPP implementation with
"authentication" as one that implements the standard way for
transporting IPP messages within HTTP 1.1. These include the security
considerations outlined in the HTTP 1.1 standard document [rfc2068] and
Digest Access Authentication extension [rfc2069].
The current HTTP infrastructure supports HTTP over TCP port 80. IPP
server implementations MUST offer IPP services using HTTP over the IANA
assigned Well Known Port 631 (the IPP default port). IPP server
implementations may support other ports, in addition to this port.
See further discussion of IPP security concepts in the model document
[ipp-mod].
---snip---
If IPP is going to rely on SSL for security, that lets it in for all the difficulties of getting and using SSL that already exist.
Additionally, the whole specification looks pretty complex. Something of the second-system effect in there, I think. Expect to see IPP exploits on BugTraq.
Samba did / does this already. (Score:1)
- try this across a router...
Current safety of networked printers... (Score:1)
I log at least one scan per week directed specifically to network printer ports (HP or otherwise)
https://www.mav.net/teddyr/syousif/ [mav.net]
IPP a good thing -- well sort of... (Score:2)
Anyway, network printing is a good thing. It allows you to work with literally hundreds of printers reliably. The thing is how do you talk to a printer. In most cases you have two choices. LPR and port 9100. LPR is not well suited to talking to printers because it doesn't allow you to pass any information back from the printer. For example you don't know if your print job just failed becasuse of a PS error. You also can't ask the printer about its capabilities. Port 9100 and PS together solve these problems. Port 9100 is just a standard port for a bidirectional TCP/IP connection to the printer. That way when you get PS errors you can read the error messages back from the socket. PS allows you to interrogate the printer for information.
The thing is this sort of means that you have to have a fairly intelligent print server. The printer vendors want to build all that intellegence into the printer and the protocol that communicates with the printer. So that is why they invented IPP.
Why I like this idea. (Score:3)
Now, we could argue if this standard is being done right, but that will not accomplish anything. Lets insted be happy with the fact that people are working towards another cross-platform technology. And if you do not like the way this one works, draft up your own ideas, I am sure people would be more then happy to look at them.
Sometimes I get the idea that people would rather sit back and complian about the work of others, and not do anything to make it better. That is what is great about the internet, you don't have to be someone important to have a good idea that people latch onto.
Color faxing! (Score:1)
This is going to be a great way for businesses who send alot of faxes to save on LD charges for faxing, as long as the reciever/sender has one of these IPP printers...
Lets see how long it takes for these things to take off!
sounds easy to screw with. (Score:3)
-mike kania
I don't see the point ... (Score:1)
Plus, if I post my printer URL (printer:// ???), I would need some serious filtering/firewalling not to have all the world spammer jam my printer. At the cost of ink cartridge, better think twice before publishing your printer "Web adress" (--> this one really made me fall down my chair
Access control already solved (Score:1)
What are model files? (Score:1)
As such, I don't know how safe it would be to use on a remote printer, which probably doesn't support such things. That's another reason IPP is good... it's standardized, and LPR isn't.
Not Lame (Score:2)
Also, having a single standard means that you won't need to install netatalk, samba _and_ lpr to be able to talk to any printer you want. Ideally, everyone would support IPP so you'd only need one thing.
There's surely more and I've not read the standard, but iirc the author of LPRng was involved in standardization, so it should fix annoyances people have with lpr.
Lam! (Score:2)
Tell me, how do I tell the LPD server I'm sending it PDF which it should print in reverse order, 4 pages per sheet, both sides, first page from the letterhead tray and remainder from tray 3?
The author of lpr/lpd had this to say (Score:2)
His comment "Hasn't this already been done?"
My reply "That is what everyone on Slashdot is saying."
Then he mentioned that he is amazed that a certain part of the lpr/lpd/etc code has not been updated... apprantly a certain part would be more clean if it used select(). Then again, he was a "dinky undergrad" when he wrote that entire package.
- Sam Trenholme
Stand-alone printer? (Score:1)
Realistically, IPP seems about 2years out of date
http://www.sun.com/jini/
New Poll Idea... (Score:1)
IPP on Linux first? (Score:1)
yet havnt announced it due to its unfinished nature
The point is... (Score:2)
(Is anyone else amused by the statement that, "the bottleneck at this point is Microsoft"? ;-)
the protocol is drek (Score:1)
wouldn't even agree to standardize it.
Hmm .. (Score:1)
I am going to make a print filter for my printer that signals an X10 module attached to my printer so that the printer turns on when a print job is sent. Then, after a few minutes, the printer turns off also.
Try '65... was _old_ on first PDP-11 I ever used! (Score:1)
Emperor's New Printer? Anyone remember the OS/2 cartoon that circulated about 6 years ago?
Ban the environment! (Score:1)
With this new protocol, plus the usual wonderfully secure and bugless implementation of it from dear old Micro$loth, them there trees is _all_ deaders!
I think we should immediately move to support low-power flat hi-res displays, even monochrome ones, with a view to helping Moore's law in making them cheaper, more portable and more readily available. Then we can carry our "printer" around with us and who cares if someone "prints" 100 pages to it?
I do it already... (Score:2)
Seriously though... I thought there was already an accepted standard for printing via tcp/ip. Just about every device and operating system has direct support for LPR printing. Even the Neoware network computers can emulate an LPR printer for the LPT port they have on the back of them. Isn't that the whole point of RFC1179? [sri.com]
IPP on Linux first? (Score:1)
Agree, even HP Laser network printer using lpr (Score:1)
Why reinvent the wheel? (Score:1)
I don't see any reason reinvent the wheel. I'm impress only if they invent a Quatum printing technology,
Hmm .. (Score:3)
Printers with a webpage (Score:1)
(rant) of course, a lot of workgroup printer issues would be helped greatly by using an OS that relays the printer feedback to the user. Hmm... let's see... Macs do that! I'd love to show otherwise, but i've never seen a windows or linux box that gives you the message, "paper tray is empty" or "output bin full". (/rant)
seriously, i'd LOVE to see this functionality in linux - it's one of those fabulous touches i'd sorely miss if i dumped macos
um, NDPS? (Score:1)
Plug a NDPS aware printer into you network, or into a NDPS aware JetDirect-ish box, create an object in nwadmin and print. Thats it.
Tell it what divers to use, and itll push 'em down to the lusers.
So far NDS is the only shipping directory service, and prety close to everyone can use it, from IBM mainframe people to 9x/NT and slowaris.
ADS may never ship, and lots of companies holding out for MS have bailed and moving to Novell. And since you can now replace all of NT's administration & authentcation with NDS, why would you ever use ADS? NDS works, and it works today. Im sure within a month of win2k shipping there will be NDS for it.
NDS might well mean the end of MS, or at least another nail in there coffin :)
SPAM (Score:1)
Some research tools for this are available (Score:1)
fax machine that's really just a PC... (Score:1)
Microsoft is the bottleneck? A duel, then. (Score:1)
Anyone can propose a standard. It doesn't do you much good, however, if 90% of the computers don't use it, or worse, use a competing implementation.
I assume most of the politics surrounding the standards bodies involve getting MS buy-in.
--
Hmmm (Score:1)
A better, universal printer protocol would be nice. (Better than lpr that is.)
--
SPAM (Score:1)
For example, I can shutdown my servers whenever I want, wherever I am. Now, can you?
With the printers it will be (is) the same. I (and my friends) can print on my printer whenever we want, wherever we are.
reasoning (Score:1)
Also, having a single standard means that you won't need to install netatalk, samba _and_ lpr to be able to talk to any printer you want. Ideally, everyone would support IPP so you'donly need one thing.
It's sort of flawed reasoning to say that by making one more "standard," everyone will follow it automatically. All it will do is force people to be able to handle one more protocol, because plenty will stay with the old methods, but to be compatible, servers etc. will have to have IPP as well.
Everyone has good points above here, just one more (Score:1)
Microsoft is the bottleneck? Break the bottle... (Score:1)
--
Paranoid
HTTP printing (Score:1)
Postscript virus ? (Score:1)
I never thought of viruses in Postscript before because I never thought of printing Postscript files straight to a printer from unknown sources. The only Postscript I ever process is the output from troff or groff which I then run through Ghostscript in bitmap-file generation mode which I then run through my extremely ugly program to generate a compressed image for my ancient 4019 printer (or, when I'm feeling playful, my MX-80 with or without GRAFTRAX-80 or when I'm feeling devious, a 3820.)
Macintosh had this in '85; IBM had in '70 (Score:1)
Printing has always been a weak spot in Unix, and it's especially glaring in Linux. This is probably due to the historic use of Postscript-only printer devices in Unix's history. Few of us have Postscript printers, and Ghostscript's device support is abjectly horrible. (I'm working on a usable 4019/4029 driver, though. =)
It's just interesting to see the various defiencies in the internet protocols improve. I've never liked ad-hoc Berkeley protocols anyway (like rcmd, although it is handy for some things). OK, so I *do* like SLIP.
CLUELESSNESS! (Score:2)
I haven't seen a piece of journalism this bad in a long time. Let's start with the title: ``Printers to get their own Web addresses'' Umm, does that mean there will be a URL scheme to go with IPP?
How about ``A system administrator could manage his printers from a hotel room.'' Haven't these guys heard of lpq(8)/telnet(1)? Geesh.
Don't let this bit of CNN reporting dissuade you from IPP, however, because it looks like it will fix some of my pet peeves with Berkeley lpd(8)--namely, no decent authentication, no queue management in the protocol beyond deleting jobs, and no thought given to the actual format of the transported data (you've got to either use Postscript queues or raw text queues or use specific printer drivers on all clients).
It should be noted that most expensive printers with network connections already support LPR and many support a strange feature where you can `print' HTML files (it's called ``Web printing'').
How do you figure you need NT? (Score:1)
No NT involved.
Jet-Direct _needs_ replacing. (Score:2)
We provide dial-up access to an organization just next-door to ours, with a bunch of HP equipment. They have their own network (in fact, their own ISP), but they were unwilling to support their own employees, so... it's a long story. Anyway, about a year ago, we got a furious phone call from the organization's network admin saying that someone on our dialup was trying to crack their network. When we asked for some kind of log of the activity, he produced a firewall log tracking a bunch of SNMP access attempts to an IP address on their network.
So, I tracked the IP. Turns out it was an HP printer. The Jet-Direct software was too stupid to know it was connected via dial-up, and was tripping the firewall trying to get in. I took particular relish in informing them that the cracker was a fifty year old employee of theirs who was just trying to get her e-mail.
Stupid Newbie Question (Score:1)
HTTP printing (Score:1)
Hmm .. (Score:1)
IMHO and such...
Jurph
UCM is _not_ UCE/UCF (Score:2)
But you're forgetting one of the main differences between junk snail mail(UCM), junk email(UCE) and faxes(UCF). The cost for sending UCM resides solely on the sender, while the cost of sending UCE resides on the recipient. In the case of a UCF, the cost on the recipient is much more direct ("Hey, that's my ink and paper they're using!"). You can't compare UCM and UCE/UCF. They're two different bags of shit.
You don't need one firewall per printer inside your network, the purpose of a firewall is to block/allow ALL types of traffic to a network, with exceptions. And exceptions to those exceptions, and so on.
I personally find that there is a need for an intermediary between the sender and the printer anyway. If I have a printer on the net, I'll make sure that I review all print requests before they're printed. This will be fine for a small scale (personal), but for corporations and such I can see a scheme where there are trusted invididuals who are allowed to print directly, and everybody else either is disallowed or goes through a screener.
M.
Problems (Score:4)
From the cursory glance I gave HP's site of IPP a couple weeks ago, it didn't look like there was much of a standard for access control on the system. I mean, receiving a 100 page email is one thing -- you can delete it, and it doesn't use much in the way of material resources. However if someone uses IPP to send you a 100 page piece of junk, even if it's accidental (typed in the wrong ip?), it can cost quite a bit... Especially if it's a nice color transparency printer!
I'm all for standardizing printing protocols, but I really think IPP needs a little more work before it becomes mainstream. For now, I'm quite happy spooling stuff to port 515 on my printers
Printers with a webpage (Score:1)
The QMS MagiColor 2 we have at work does this. Just point any browser to the printers IP, and a stats page comes up with toner levels, etc..
Stand-alone printer? (Score:1)
Seems to me that telnet is the wave of the future. (Score:1)
printing over tcp-ip local networks is one thing, but, printing over the internet, that's weak.
Anyways, if somebody wants to use my printer, they have to come at my house anyway to pick up the paper. And if they want to send me a a message by printing it, they can just telnet into my box and use lpr.... In all other cases, I DON'T WANT THEM TO USE MY PRINTER!!!!
I think the whole concept of this new protocol is (a) stupid, (b) useless, (c) a way for some guy to have his name on some crappy new internet protocol...
Papi
Color faxing, why ?? (Score:1)
if somebody wants to use your printer to send you a fax, why wouldn't they just telnet into your box and just use lpr.... E-mailing gifs is another easy solutions for people with the inferior OS (and this would have a better resolution and cost much less anyway).
Papi
*Another* protocol? What for? (Score:1)
Want faxing? http://www.tpc.int
These news guys should get a job as janitors!!!
Postscript virus ? (Score:1)
against a Postscript virus.
Nitin
-----
SPAM (Score:1)
Microsoft is the bottleneck? Break the bottle... (Score:1)
"The real bottleneck is Microsoft," Held said. "You need software on your computer that will allow you to select and talk to a destination device."
Yes, but why does that have to be Microsoft software? (Held's ignorance here is appalling, given that he is a "senior analyst at Lyra Research", unless there's some patent issue not mentioned?)
The Redmond, Wash. giant is promising that client-side software will be available with Windows 2000, Held said.
Whenever that is.
If this is something worth doing (and I can see some business uses, although as others here have said, this is the sort of thing some of us have been doing for years with lpd), we could have a linux client (and server, for printers directly connected to the linux box) in a couple of days.
(Probably a Windows client too, for that matter. Almost worth doing to provide Yet Another reason not to buy Win2K.)
Mapping between LPD and IPP (Score:1)
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ ipp/new_PRO/ipp-lpd-981116.txt [pwg.org]
There are some differences. LPD has a few features IPP doesn't (some of them outdated), and IPP supports things LPD doesn't.
Oh boy, I can hardly wait... (Score:2)
compliant, that printer will have a Web address and anyone around the world who can get on the Internet can print to that URL," said Robert Palmer,
And he says this like it's a good thing.
Yet another protocol to filter at the firewall.
not reinventing the wheel (Score:2)
Reading the CNN piece made me very hostile to this idea. Reading some of the documents on www.pwg.org [slashdot.org] made me less so. These guys are doing some genuinely clueful stuff in this protocol, and it's worth reading.
I do find some of their choices puzzling. For example, the FAQ [pwg.org] dismisses the BSD LPR protocol as ``proprietary'' and therefore unusable. (Hello? By what bizarro definition of ``proprietary'' does 4.4BSD qualify?) They reject RFC 1179 because it's not an Internet standard, and then adopt SSL3 for security, even though it does not seem to be any more official in the IETF sense. A lot of the work seems to be more ad-hoc than they're willing to let on.
Other posters have noted that complex protocols are difficult to do right, and especially difficult to do securely. That's going to be a major problem right there. But overall, an IETF-blessed effort toward an open standard for network printing that includes participation from hardware vendors is probably going to be a good thing in the long run.
Problems (Score:1)
Web addressing? (Score:1)
Hangtime
Samba did / does this already. (Score:2)
I think anyone who would be asked to implement this has probably already done this, or knows how to do it.
Protocol Specifications (Score:5)
Scott Severtson
Software Developer
Auragen Communications
scotty@auragen.com
My bad... (Score:5)
Scott Severtson
Software Developer
Auragen Communications
scotty@auragen.com
Protocol Specifications Review (Score:5)
- IPP is secureThe protocol specifies that Transport Layer Security (TLS) Version 1.0 will be used to provided mutual authentication and encryption. Elsewhere in the documents, (optional) compression can be applied as well.
- IPP is complexWith support for multiple document protocols, multiple documents per "job", and a fairly detailed client querying process, it also won't be cheap.
- Document protocols are specified as MIME types, and they define a couple recommended ones: PCL, Postscript, HTML, and plain text.
- Documents can be sent as a URI (i.e. an HTTP URL), which, if the IPP server supports it, can be used to go out and retrieve the document when the printer is available to print it, instead of holding it in spool.
- Multiple configurations are specified, with just waiting to be created. For example, IPP allows a printer with an embedded spooler and internet interface, a printer hooked to a spooling server with an internet interface, and multiple printers hooked to a spooling, smart server with an internet interface, which routes the document to the printer best suited/least busy for the job.
- Supports extended properties for client querying. The single biggest advantage of the system is that the client does not have to have any idea of what type of print it is printing to, i.e. no more specific printer drivers. Instead, the client connects to the printer/spooler, asks it what it can do, and sends the document in a compatable format. This should (hopefully) save a lot of hassle in the work place for configuring printers on thousands of desktops.
Just my two cents.Scott Severtson
Software Developer
Auragen Communications
scotty@auragen.com
I do it already... (Score:2)
I don't get it. I just parse my logfiles looking for NETBIOS broadcasts on the cablemodem segment, run smbclient to scan for open shares then print interesting printers to people on my segment with open printers. I guess this is finally a solid standard that all systems will support. Yay.
--