attachment
<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Hi,<br><br></div>I agree with Bill's comments.<br><br></div>I suggest that the Implementors Guide should document that the intended<br></div>meaning of 'attempted' in RFC 2911 was and is 'best-effort'. There is no<br>
</div>wiggle room in RFC 2911 (page 139), in my reading, that the Printer can<br>say 'attempted' and then NOT make the attempt.<br><br></div>I agree that making 'attempted' REQUIRED is cold comfort to Clients.<br>
</div><br>I suggest that the definition of 'guaranteed' (NOT defined in RFC 2911,<br>but rather in section 11 of JSP2, PWG 5100.11-2010) is so convoluted<br></div>that it is not practical to implement.<br><br></div>
Cheers,<br></div>- Ira<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)<br>Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG<br>Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG<br>
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group<br>Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG<br>IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB<br>Blue Roof Music / High North Inc<br><a style="color:rgb(51,51,255)" href="http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic" target="_blank">http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic</a><br>
<a style="color:rgb(102,0,204)" href="http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc" target="_blank">http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc</a><br>mailto: <a href="mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com" target="_blank">blueroofmusic@gmail.com</a><br>
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094<br>Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434<br><br><div style="display:inline"></div><div style="display:inline"></div><div style="display:inline"></div>
<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 12:26 PM, William A Wagner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wamwagner@comcast.net" target="_blank">wamwagner@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">As Ira suggests, I believe that it is very difficult to “guarantee” successful override, considering the potential complexity and variations in the PDL. But ‘attempted’ is squishy and making it REQUIRED might tempt some to report ‘attempted’ even when the attempt is halfhearted (or non-existent). That would make the value even more unreliable. Perhaps we should have allowed a value of ‘best effort’ meaning that the printer will really try. But I think making ‘attempted’ a minimum REQUIRED response may just increase uncertainty. Better that the User understand that he is stuck with what is in the PDL if there is not very good likelihood that the overrides will be completely successful.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Bill Wagner<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><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""> <a href="mailto:ipp-bounces@pwg.org" target="_blank">ipp-bounces@pwg.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ipp-bounces@pwg.org" target="_blank">ipp-bounces@pwg.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ira McDonald<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:42 AM<br><b>To:</b> Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect); Ira McDonald<br><b>Cc:</b> <<a href="mailto:ipp@pwg.org" target="_blank">ipp@pwg.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [IPP] Potential errata/update for PWG Raster Format and/or IPP Everywhere specs<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi Smith,<u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal">We've never made "pdl-override-supported" have 'guaranteed' as REQUIRED<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal">(even in IPP/2.1 or IPP/2.2 levels), because it's binary. <br><br>If you claim that your Printer supports 'guaranteed' then you have to be able to<br>*successfully* intercept and override everything in your interpreters (vanishingly <br>
unlikely in PDF, for example).<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal">I agree with Mike that I've never seen a printer in the wild that actually supported<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">'guaranteed'.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I also agree that should make 'attempted' a REQUIRED value and 'guaranteed'<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">a RECOMMENDED value (explaining in the Implementors Guide that there are<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">practical limitations w/ third-party interpreters to perfect override).<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Cheers,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">- Ira<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br><br><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal">Cheers,<u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">- Ira<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all"><u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)<br>Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG<br>Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG<br>Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group<br>Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG<br>
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB<br>Blue Roof Music / High North Inc<br><a href="http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3333ff">http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic</span></a><br>
<a href="http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc" target="_blank"><span style="color:#6600cc">http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc</span></a><br>mailto: <a href="mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com" target="_blank">blueroofmusic@gmail.com</a><br>
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 <a href="tel:734-944-0094" value="+17349440094" target="_blank">734-944-0094</a><br>Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 <a href="tel:906-494-2434" value="+19064942434" target="_blank">906-494-2434</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <<a href="mailto:smith.kennedy@hp.com" target="_blank">smith.kennedy@hp.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Mike,<br><br>Since “attempted” is so squishy, why not mandate “guaranteed”? Including “attempted” seems like a loophole.<br><br>Smith<br><br>/**<br> Smith Kennedy<br> ATB Wireless Architect - PPS<br>
Hewlett-Packard Co.<br>*/<u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><br><br><br>On 2014-05-21, at 7:42 AM, Michael Sweet <<a href="mailto:msweet@apple.com" target="_blank">msweet@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> All,<br>><br>> It has come to my attention that neither the IPP Everywhere nor the PWG Raster Format specs explicitly call out required values for the "pdl-override-supported" Printer attribute. This attribute specifies whether the Printer can override embedded job ticket information (such as media size) when requested in a Job via the "ipp-attribute-fidelity" or "job-mandatory-attributes" Job Template attributes.<br>
><br>> Generally speaking, Printers SHOULD support PDL override for the standard PDLs in IPP Everywhere, including PWG Raster, JPEG, and PDF. Typically this means forcing prints to a single media/size or forcing simplex/duplex output, and is particularly important for JPEG.<br>
><br>> My recommendation is for us to add the following conformance statement in a future revision of the IPP Everywhere specification:<br>><br>> pdl-override-supported (type2 keyword)<br>><br>> When reporting capabilities for the 'application/pdf', 'image/jpeg', or 'image/pwg-raster'<br>
> MIME media types, Printers MUST report either 'attempted' or 'guaranteed' for the<br>> "pdl-override-supported" Printer attribute,<br>><br>> Thoughts?<br>><br>> _________________________________________________________<br>
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair<br>><u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">> _______________________________________________<br>> ipp mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:ipp@pwg.org" target="_blank">ipp@pwg.org</a><br>> <a href="https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp" target="_blank">https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp</a><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>
ipp mailing list<br><a href="mailto:ipp@pwg.org" target="_blank">ipp@pwg.org</a><br><a href="https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp" target="_blank">https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp</a><u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal">
<u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>