[Cloud] Concall 24 Mar 3PM ET

[Cloud] Concall 24 Mar 3PM ET

William A Wagner wamwagner at comcast.net
Fri Mar 21 20:31:51 UTC 2014

There will be a Cloud Imaging Model conference call on Monday at 3PM ET,
(Noon PT)


AUDIO: Phone Bridge

  Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239
  Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300 (Primary)
  Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570 (Backup)

  Attendee Access Code: *******#
  Attendee ID Code: # (empty)

If you need the Attendee Access code, please email me a request.


Topic: IPP/Cloud WG 

Date: Every Monday

Time: 3:00 pm, Eastern Daylight Time (New York, GMT-04:00) 

Meeting Number: 682 763 393 

Meeting Password: Printing123 


To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) 


1. Go to https://ieee-isto.webex.com/ieee-isto/j.php?ED=152699422

2. If requested, enter your name and email address. 

3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: Printing123 

4. Click "Join". 


NOTE that conference uses phone bridge as indicated above, not audio with
PWG Webex 

To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: 




For assistance 


1. Go to https://ieee-isto.webex.com/ieee-isto/mc 

2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". 


To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft
Outlook), click this link: 


(1) PWG IP Policy and Minute Taker 
(2) Approve Cloud minutes from February concall

(3) Consider IPP SIX Cloud Model comparison

(4) Review updated Draft
addressing  the following


Although (we hope) that this document is nearing prototype status, there are
several question that have arisen, or that I have, that should be addressed.


1.       There is a requirement that the  Cloud Imaging System maintain a
log in the format of  the PWG Common Log Format.

a.       Does the Cloud System retain the log or do the individual Cloud

b.      Are the job events and parameters in the PWG Common Log Format Spec
sufficient for a Cloud Service/System?

2.       It was requested that DocumentFormatAccepted and
CompressionAccepted be added as optional elements to the FetchDocument
operation. The terms are derived from IPP and do not appear in the Semantic
Model. It is understood that these are "preferred" values, not supported

a.       Should "preferred" values be added to the Semantic Model?

b.      The model requires that the Proxy communicate the significant
elements and values of a local service (Accessible Element Set) to the
corresponding Cloud Service and update them as necessary. Therefore
preferred as well as supported values would be known to the Cloud Service.
Why should they be included in specific FetchDocument requests? 

c.       Or do we have a misunderstanding or disagreement with respect to
communicating the Accessible Element Set of Local Service capabilities and
description elements to the Cloud Service?

3.       The Model description should refer to elements  in the Semantic
Model, not IPP.

a.       Should the Cloud Model explicitly identify Semantic Model elements
to be included in Operations Requests and Responses? This may require
defining new elements for inclusion in SM3.

b.      Is it necessary/desirable to ensure inclusion of elements
corresponding to all IPP SIX attributes in IPP versions of the operations?
(not include a mapping in the document, but certainly generating one in a

4.       It was requested that the GetJobElements operation be added to the
Proxy/Cloud interface, presumably to allow the Proxy to maintain a Job Log.
Although the intent of  this operation is that same as for the
GetJobElements operation in the Client-Cloud interface, the access policy
restrictions are different. Specifically, for the Proxy interface, the Cloud
Service must deny access if the requested job is not one that that Cloud
Service  has provided to the identified Local Service.

a.       Are there other potential access restrictions as well for the Proxy

b.      Should the Proxy interface version of this operation have a
different name, so that defining the access and potential error response
information, which is different for the proxy version, does not overly
complicate the description of the operation?


Thank You,

Bill Wagner

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/cloud/attachments/20140321/ba9087d9/attachment.html>

More information about the cloud mailing list