Bill, thanks for feedback on moving forward. glen
________________________________
From: William A Wagner [mailto:wamwagner at comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:42 PM
To: Petrie, Glen; cloud at pwg.org
Subject: RE: [Cloud] What we are working on
Glen,
I suggest that saying that the interface was already defined was more an
indication that we have an approach, not that it is done. We indeed
talked about operations/objects that need to be define, such as the
query and response for work objects. Ira had taken a cut at some of the
new operations some time ago, but I think they certainly are subject to
review and additional documentation, if indeed we agree that they are
necessary and sufficient.
I believe we also agreed to specify the client-cloudprintservice
interface, which we also think we have a handle on, but somehow writing
it down explicitly tends to being up other issues.
And, with regard to the "out of scope" registration/association
processes, I believe that even though we may not define these interfaces
in terms of specific operations and sequences, we do need to define them
in terms of the information needs to be exchanged. The situation, as I
understand it, is that Cloud Printing may very well be a service of some
other cloud system, in which case,
registration/association/authentication for Cloud Printing may very
well be tied into the registration/association/authentication processes
that are inherent in this wider scope cloud capability. For example,
cloud printing capability may reasonably be supplied in conjunction with
cloud computing facilities, and would use
registration/association/authentication processes already in place for
those facilities (hopefully enhanced by the printing specific
information that we identify).
We would not want to specify processes that are incompatible with such
cloud printing capabilities. However, if the working group determines
that we should also model an independent cloud printing only capability,
we could decide to specify these other interfaces for use in that case.
That is up to the working group to decide.
But for now, let's try and document what we think we have a good handle
on. Believe me, there really is a lot more work left here than you seem
to suggest.
Thanks,
Bill Wagner
From: Petrie, Glen [mailto:glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 5:50 PM
To: cloud at pwg.org; William Wagner
Subject: RE: [Cloud] What we are working on
I just saw from Mike Sweet's mail note to Randy, that what I stated
below is mostly (if not completely) true.
Glen
________________________________
From: cloud-bounces at pwg.org <mailto:cloud-bounces at pwg.org>
[mailto:cloud-bounces at pwg.org <mailto:cloud-bounces at pwg.org> ] On Behalf
Of Petrie, Glen
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 2:41 PM
To: cloud at pwg.org <mailto:cloud at pwg.org> ; William Wagner
Subject: [Cloud] What we are working on
Bill,
From the meeting I understand the "client <=> cloud print service"
interface is already defined (according the Pete and Ira). Since other
"cloud system" interfaces (registration, etc) were declared out-of-scope
(at least for now); then I believe this, as I stated in the meeting,
leave the group activity to writing the specification (or augmenting
existing specifications via extensions) for the interface between the
"Print Cloud Service <=> Cloud Print Manager". Are there others
specification that I missed?
Glen
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/cloud/attachments/20120626/489eded3/attachment-0002.html>