Documentation clarification for CUPS newbie

[gcr]

In principle, you're quite right that the onus is on Microsoft to
clarify their support of IPP.  However, in view of Microsoft's claims
that IPP is supported, not to mention the fact that it's generally
common street knowledge that such support exists and
is good enough to allow decent CUPS-based networking for many applications, let me suggest the following: why not simply mention in the CUPS documentation that WINDOWS networking with CUPS is questionable owing to only partial IPP support, rather than flatout asserting that such a capability is non-existent.  This would greatly reduce confusion (as evidenced by this email thread) resulting from the gap between street knowledge and the software's documented capabilities.  I think a bug report  along these lines is certainly appropriate, and I intend to file one.

Gene


> gcr <quaternion at comcast.net> wrote (Wednesday 02 August 2006 11:50):
>
> > BTW, I'm a WINDOWS newbie, but contrary to what's in the reply,
> > it's been my understanding that WINDOWS 95,98 did NOT support
> > CUPS/IPP, but that support WAS provided in WINDOWS 2000,
>
> Microsoft does *not* support the full specification of IPP 1.1 that
> has officially been acknowledged by the IETF as a "recommended
> standard".
>
> Microsoft does support IPP 1.0, which never was made an official
> IETF recommended standard, but always remained a "draft". IPP 1.0
> lacks specs for authentication, and Microsoft just uses one of own
> semi-proprietary Windows authentication schemes (maybe NTLM, not
> sure) on top of IPP 1.0.
>
> This is true for all of their IPP upgrades (which used to be
> available for Win95/98 as well when those OS where not yet put into
> the "unsupported" list).
>
> I suggest you file a bug report and feature request with Microsoft
> first; they are 5-6 years behind in their IPP support.
>
> Cheers,
> Kurt