CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_



Reported by Glenn Trewitt/DEC

NPP Minutes

The following items were on the Agenda:


   o LPR/LPD Protocol RFC
   o Printer Access Protocol -- modifications
   o Son of LPR/LPD; Palladium
   o Charter and Schedule


One item was added:


   o Network Printing Protocol from UMD


This meeting was hampered by a lack of continuity.  By my count, only
four out of the twenty people at the meeting had been to any previous
meetings.  Advance notice of the next meeting may help to with this.

Printer Access Protocol

There were several discussions before the meeting with members of the
Security and Authentication Group (SAAG) about how to add security to
PAP. John Linn, who sat in on the meeting, was most helpful.
Surprisingly, we were able to come up with a small set of extensions
that do security to everyone's satisfactions.  A note will be sent out
describing these.

There was no discussion about the other issues mentioned in the Agenda,
because Ajay Kachrani and Glenn Trewitt were the only individuals who
had specific knowledge of them.  Glenn has not seen any comments about
the proposed changes that he sent out, or about the use of (minimal) PDL
commands for paper tray, font, etc., selection mentioned in the Agenda.

LPD Protocol RFC

There was a very useful discussion about the nit-picky things that the

                                   1






RFC isn't clear on, such as acknowledgements.  A revised RFC will be
sent out with these elaborations within two weeks.  An attempt will be
made to deal with the following issues that have been raised at previous
meetings:


   o ``Pure protocol'' vs.  4.2 implementation
   o Noting extensions that have been made


It is possible that some of the useful (compatible) additions may make
it into 4.4 bsd.  This would be a big win.

Network Printing Protocol from UMD

Bruce Crabill from the University of Maryland presented a protocol used
there for printing.  It resembles SMTP, in the form of its client/server
dialog.  The functionality is a bit higher than LPR/LPD. The significant
improvement over LPR/LPD is the fact that responses can be more
detailed, and that information can be passed back to the client.  (In
LPR/LPD, the only way that information gets back to the client is at the
end of communication, in which case a text string (usually an error
message) is sent back.)

Son of LPR/LPD; Palladium

Still lots of ideas about what belongs in the client  ->spooler ,
spooler  ->spooler , and spooler  ->printer  protocols.  There seemed to
be a lot of agreement that the three had only minor differences between
them.  This would lead to the consideration that perhaps there should
only be one protocol.  Is PAP a candidate?  What about the UMD work?

Glenn would like to see some discussion about this on the list *before*
the next meeting.

Network Printing Working Group Charter

There was no discussion of the Charter or schedule, although Glenn
intends to have either PAP or the LPR RFC ready for a final round of
comments by the next meeting, and the other polished up by the next one.

Attendees

Charles Bazaar           bazaar@emulex.com
Bruce Crabill            bruce@umdd.umd.edu

                                   2






Bill Durham              durham@MDC.COM
Elizabeth Feinler
Tom Grant                grant@xylogics.com
Keith Hacke              hacke@informatics.wustl.edu
Ajay Kachrani            kachrani@regent.enet.dec.com
Neil Katin               katin@eng.sun.com
Kenneth Key              key@cs.utk.gdy
Charles Kimber
Anders Klemets           klemets@cs.cmu.edu
John Linn                ULTRA::LINN
David Lippke             lippke@utdallas.edu
Joshua Littlefield       josh@cayman.com
Leo McLaughlin           ljm@ftp.com
Donald Merritt           don@brl.mil
Keith Moore              moore@cs.utk.edu
Michael Patton           map@lcs.mit.edu
Jan Michael Rynning      jmr@nada.kth.se
Sam Sjogren              sjogren@tgv.com



                                   3