Network Printing Working Group -- new files and agenda

[Glenn Trewitt <[e-mail]>]

The Network Printing Working group will be meeting in San Diego on
Monday from 1:30 to 3:30 in the afternoon.

Here is the agenda:

****
Finish off the lpr/lpd spec and answer outstanding questions.  I've
listed the specific questions that I need answered at the end of this
message.  This should be short.

****
Figure out what we want to do with the RFC:
	* Leave it as "informational".
	* Put it on the standards track.
		This requires implementation, etc.
		Are there any implementors out there?
		(I hope that we can get Russ Hobby to explain what's
		involved here.)

****
Figure out what (if anything) we do next
	* Is there interest in the WG for the Printer Access Protocol?
	  It feels a bit like I've been pushing a limp rope on this one.
	* Do we have the right set of people to do a good job of
	  designing and implementing a replacement for lpr/lpd?


The following new files are available:

new-lpd.txt
new-lpd.ps
	The current draft of the LPR/LPD protocol spec.

DEC-cpap.txt
DEC-cpap.ps
	This document describes the "Printer Access Protcol" that has been
	submitted for consideration by the WG.  A lot of work has been
	done to make this more of a standalone document, and to feel
	more like an RFC.

They may be retrieved by anonymous FTP from gatekeeper.dec.com, in
~ftp/pub/net/info/ietf/print-wg.


Here are the questions that *I* need answers to, in order to finish the
LPR/LPD RFC.

** In text data files, do we accept any line endings besides LF?

** When a command or subcommand returns a failure status, does/should the
	daemon immediately close the connection?

** Do we need to be more specific in the format or content of the "Send
	Queue State" listing?

** Is the description for "Remove Jobs" (Section 5.5) accurate,
	especially w.r.t. wildcard deletes?

** Are the failure codes for the second acknowledgement in "Receive
	Control File" and "Receive Data File" (Sections 6.2 and 6.3)
	correct and complete?

** Is the wording for the 'v' print command (Section 8.11) correct?

** Were we removing the Palladium ('z' print command)?

	- Glenn