attachment
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Andale Mono";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1440682321;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1807370694 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Michael and Ira,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I offer the following observation, subject of course to expert comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The IPP multifunction approach is evolving from IPP where there was just one type of service and the client dealt just with a Printer Object, that it accessed via a print service. Any necessary information about the physical “output” device came though the Service connection. I am not sure how IPP multifunction will evolve, but it could also have the normal user deal with just the service he is interested in and any necessary information about the “endpoint” comes though the Service connection. The IPP “System Control Service” would then be devoted to monitoring and management of the “Imaging System” and any physical components that were a part of it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>True, the Semantic Model evolved from IPP. But the current version of the Semantic Model specifically addressed an MFD, considering how to handle multiple types of imaging services. So the Printer became expanded to an Imaging System and a System Control Service was defined to provide access to System Elements. I have perhaps overstressed the “Imaging System” and, as Ira points out, the system may not relate to a device in the case of a distributed . Perhaps the basic imaging services user need never even be aware that there is a system.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>So, if I drop my MFD mindset, a reasonable network model has the Imaging Services User just accessing the desire imaging service. Access to the System Control Service is limited to supervisory/management/maintenance users. As far as the basic User is concerned, there is no Imaging System and no *Imaging Device*; there are Services and elements in the Service provide information on the location of the endpoint, the IPP *physical device*. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>However, for practical purposes, there may still be justification for the Proxy to access the Cloud System Control Service (or some other Cloud-based component) that can provide/accept summary information for/from the Proxy just as the Proxy can provide summary information for the Local Services. The alternative, which would be simpler but involve more traffic, would be for the Proxy to just communicate with each Cloud Service independently.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>So, the diagram would show the both Cloud and local Services (including System Control Service) as being within Imaging Systems and the Proxy would interface with each Cloud Service and each local service. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> Thanks, Bill Wagner<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter" />
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0" />
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" />
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t" />
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:543.75pt;height:541.5pt' o:ole="">
<v:imagedata src="cid:image001.emz@01CEF668.49ECCB10" o:title="" />
</v:shape><![endif]--><![if !vml]><img width=725 height=722 src="cid:image002.png@01CEF668.49ECCB10" v:shapes="_x0000_i1025"><![endif]><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OLEObject Type="Embed" ProgID="Visio.Drawing.11" ShapeID="_x0000_i1025" DrawAspect="Content" ObjectID="_1448268255">
</o:OLEObject>
</xml><![endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet@apple.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 11, 2013 9:04 AM<br><b>To:</b> William A Wagner<br><b>Cc:</b> <cloud@pwg.org>; <ipp@pwg.org>; Semantic Model 3.0 Workgroup discussion list<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Cloud] Simplified Cloud Imaging Diagram for a typical MFD<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Bill,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:24 AM, William A Wagner <<a href="mailto:wamwagner@comcast.net">wamwagner@comcast.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Michael,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Thank you for the diagram. Some observations, rather that objections, particularly in areas that appear different from the model and diagram we had previously agreed to and that seem inconsistent with the Semantic Model.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>We had avoided showing the interface between the proxy and local services, although the intention in defining the Proxy->Cloud operations was that the Proxy could communicate with the local services using the standard client-imaging service operations.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>True, but since we had our discussion in Monday's Cloud concall I felt it might be useful to expose it, at least for a "big picture" diagram. And this *does* mirror the IPP model diagrams in RFC 2911 and IPPSIX (figures 1 and 3) where a local print service is connected to the IPP Server or IPP Proxy. IPP Server + Print Service == IPP Printer.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>2.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>But having shown these connections, I wonder about the dotted line from the proxy to the Local System Control Service. I would expect that the Proxy acts as a proxy for the Local System Control Service to the same extent that it acts for the imaging services.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>I made the line dotted mainly because we hadn't defined a concrete relationship - the proxy might get a list of services to register from the local system control service *or* it might get it from another source (web interface, etc.), which gets it from the local system control service. Architecturally we may not care beyond the fact that the Semantic Model defines the local system control service in the model for an imaging device/system - that is something we should probably decide on and document in the Cloud model.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>3.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>According to the Semantic Model, there is an extensive client interface to the System Control Service that provides access to both System Control Service elements and System Object elements (SystemConfiguration, SystemDescription, and SystemStatus). However, the diagram shows no System Object either at the Cloud Level or the Local level (“Imaging System” in the lower right hand corner not withstanding.) The sort of information that a User might want to know about the physical location of the “device” (however one may wish to define it) is in the System Description. The UUID for the imaging device is the System UUID. I suggest that, as in the previous diagram, there is both a Cloud Imaging System and, if we are showing things beyond the Proxy, a Local Imaging System.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Adding the system object to the diagram would probably be useful. I'm not sure how we would show connections *to* this object, or whether we should (for purposes of simplifying the diagram) just update the system control service boxes to be "system control service and system object"?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>4.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>The diagram does not clear up the difference between a IPP Physical Device and a Semantic Model Device. By the SM definition definition, the Imaging Services are physically embodied within one or more physical devices. In most cases ( and certainly for a basic MFD), the Imaging System represents the elements of the Device and the System Control Service provides access to the values of these elements. Therefore, in an SM based model, I suggest that there are no lines from Imaging Services to the Device. Indeed, after the last Cloud call, I am eliminating all reference to “Device” as an actor in the cloud specification, in favor of System. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Ira made some good comments, but I'll add one: you'll notice that the proxy is only connected to services. Only the local services are connected to the physical device. I believe that both mirrors our discussions and matches the Semantic Model and IPP notions of separation.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>5.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>You presented a good argument for making IPP Identify Printer a service operation, primarily by stating that a normal user would be using a connection to a Imaging service not the System Control Service. I am unsure of the intent or limitations of the Client to Cloud System Control Service path shown in the diagram (is ListAllServices the only operation allowed?) However, although discovery is nominally of Imaging Services, it seems that the in the Semantic Model physical elements of interest in discovery should be accessed via the System Control Service, suggesting that a normal client should have at least read access to the System Control Service. It would seem reasonable that it could also trigger an Identify via this path.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>I should probably remove all of the operation names from the diagram and add letter/number identifiers (as Smith has suggested). I shows "ListAllServices" as the most likely operation a client would use in order to discover which imaging services are available, in preparation for creating a job, etc. on a specific service. Clearly the client would be able to perform any supported operation of the system control service, and I agree IdentifyDevice is one of the expected operations.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> </span><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>So, the diagram appears to reflect a IPP model using IPP terminology and does not reflect the Semantic Model of a System containing Services with system specific elements accessed via a System Control Service. Am I missing something?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>Actually, I believe the bottom half of the diagram looks a lot like Figure 6 of MFD Common Model (PWG 5108.1), just turned on its side and combining the marker and scanner subunits as the "physical device" (also a SM term that is shared with IPP - perhaps you would prefer "Multifunction Device" or "Multifunction Device/Subunits" here?)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>...<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Please remember: Semantic Model came from IPP. While some of the terminology was changed in the move to support multifunction services, and some of the responsibilities are moved around (i.e. system control service), the overall model remains the same. The IPP Printer is an IPP Server talking to an Imaging Service, just as a web service binding using the Semantic Model schema and WSDL files is an XML-RPC server talking to an Imaging Service. In both cases the imaging services are talking to the hardware subunits (as needed) with implementation-defined coordination with the System Control Service.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Andale Mono","serif";color:black'>_________________________________________________________<br>Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>