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