Talk:Internet Printing Protocol

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Dates

When (& by whom) was this protocol conceived, when did it become a standard and so forth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.174.246.169 (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above question is now very well answered by the article codeslinger 06:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.212.131 (talk)

How Widely Used Is This Protocol?

I came to look at this page to see if the IPP was some manufacturer's custom thing or a protocol in general use (the nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them). I am heartened to find a WikiPedia page for it and even more so to find RFC's that define it.

But I think it would also be helpful if a word or two was said about how widely this protocol is supported as there are many protocols that, while well defined and implemented and even useful, are not supported on very many platforms.

Davemenc 06:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in answer to the question, IPP is *the* primary printing standard. Although Microsoft continues to maintain their own propriatary standard, they also do support IPP, meanwhile for Apple and Linux it is the number one standard for printing and is an intrinsic part of CUPS. I don't know the psecifics of BSD and Unix in general, but anything that supports CUPS will also support IPP. codeslinger 06:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.212.131 (talk)

IPP

This IPP article is too scarce with information. IPP deserves more IMHO. I am not the most qualified for the job maybe, but someone more qualified can always later fix the article. This what was said has POV issues, only the criticism is mentioned and none of splendind features described in RFC. -- Mtodorov 69 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

port

Maybe mention its port number tcp/udp 631? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.223.183 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons that I cannot understand Microsoft dropped support for secure IPP with Windows 2008 which does not support HTTPS, only HTTP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.154.120 (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"raw" and "lpr" are NOT IPP !!

The article states: "It uses RAW and LPR printing protocols to print over a network." This is complete rubbish. IPP is IPP is IPP. LPR is LPR and something completely different. Also, "RAW" is not a printing protocol, but a shorthand name for "any printfile format that should go to the target print device unchanged and unfiltered". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.145.144.134 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Date

there is something haywire with the dates in the opening paragraph. It states that the project was started in 1996 and the committee was formally formed in December of *2006* and that version 1 of the standard was published in 1999. This is an apparent contradiction. I suspect the committee was formed in December 1996 not 2006 ??? codeslinger 06:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.212.131 (talk)

vendor neutrality and the possible hijacking of CUPS

IPP was designed to be a vendor neutral platform. everybody could play together, this is a "good thing". CUPS became the reference implementation for IPP, it was created by a small private company that was independent of any specific printer or operating system vendor, and thus they were able to be neutral -- even if limited in resources and profits. Then along came Apple and amid many promises of maintaining the neutrality of CUPS, they bought the small company that had created it. Now, here we are several years later and we have the situation that Microsoft is reducing the level of their support/compatibility for IPP in Windows 2008, and we have Apple's-CUPS stating that if Apple doesn't make it (the printer or computer) then they won't support it in CUPS but instead it must be supported by the Linux Foundation.

So now the question becomes, has Apple hijacked CUPS and reneged on it's promise to maintain vendor neutrality or have they legitimately refactored the codebase? And now that Apple is in control of CUPS and substantially in control of IPP, will Microsoft continue to play ball, or will they pull the rug out from under this noble attempt to unify the printing systems for all computers and all printers???

and how -- to what extent -- should this info be incorporated into the article? References: http://www.cups.org/newsgroups.php?s4418+gcups.development+v4426+T and http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting codeslinger 67.40.212.131 (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]