Re: printing WG, is this group doing anything?

[Glenn Trewitt <[e-mail]>]

I'll fourth the question...  Oh, wait, I guess the buck stops here.

Here's the situation.  First of all, I've been very busy, and haven't
had time to devote the attention to this group needs in order to have
it produce things.  Second of all, I do not (and never claimed to) have
the time or resources to do development on the things we discuss.  I
have viewed my role as a moderator/secretary/writer for our work.  I
have clearly not provided the carrot or whip necessary to spur us on.

So, if anybody has the energy to devote to chairing this group, I
hereby offer to step down, right after we (I) finish the last edits to
LPR/LPD and get it submitted as "informational".

Here's how I see the status of the various (potential) projects:

LPR/LPD: I need to integrate the edits we agree to at the last meeting.
Hopefully we can get it out the door.

CPAP (Printer Access Protocol):
The fellow who was working on RFC-izing this (Jim Jones) has taken
early retirement.  It's not clear that that group has the energy to
invest in the back-and-forth that's necessary for us as a working group
to reach concensus.  I've suggested that they take what they have and
submit it as an informational RFC, that documents existing practice.
For more information about CPAP, talk to
	Tom Powers <[e-mail]>
Tom is on this list.

LPR/LPD replacement:
Palladium is the cannonical possibility, which no one in the group has
been interested in.  Also, Brad Clements has submitted an SMTP-like
spooling protocol.

On-Demand Publishing:
I talked to Scott Bradner at the close of the San Diego IETF and he
mentioned a project that is big and needs doing.  Provide protocols to
allow a person "P" to electronically request a copy of document "X" to
be printed at print shop "S".  (e.g., A set of documents for a course.)
These documents might be VERY large; many gigabytes, so conventional
spooling techniques wouldn't work.  There would be a lot of
"third-party" negotions: P asks S to get document X.  S causes P to be
charged any copyright fees for X.  etc.  This would require a lot of
integration of interesting technologies: authentication, bulk transfer,
etc.

NPA:
A new development in the network printing arena is the "Network
Printing Alliance", which has generated a spec. for what they call the
"Bi-Di Printer Protocol".  The group is tied into IEEE.  The protocol
provides services very similar to CPAP, but I don't think that they go
as far as CPAP.  The main thing that troubles me is that the protocol
fiddles with bits *everywhere*. Beyond the message header, every
command has a distinct format and most of them employ bit fields.
Although this is a matter of personal preference, it looks like the
protocol came from a big committee. There is no "art" in it.

	- Glenn