Jay,
I will offer some observations about this proposed change.
1. The concept of the job as an object with an URI was part of the IPP
initial concept and pervades the documents. It will be no mean task
to find and edit out all of the allusions to this in the documents.
2. Paul Moore of Microsoft strong voiced his opposition to have the
job as an URI'able object citing, if I recall correctly,
implementation difficulties.
3. A potential advantage to identifying the job by a number at the
Printer URI was synchronization with the Job Monitoring MIB job index.
However, at the following Job Monitoring MIB meeting, I pointed out
that the IPP server assigning the IPP job was not necessarily in the
same place, dealing with the same physical entities or privy to the
information in the agent assigning the Job Monitoring MIB index and
that it was unrealistic to require that the same number be used. I
recall no other inherent advantages voiced to the proposed change.
4. The argument to retain the JOB URI centered about the need to
identify a job independently of the Printer which assigned the ID. No
good arguments could be found for this requirement.
5. Three proposals were presented.
a. to identify each job by an ID at the printer URI
b. to identify each job by a URI composed of the printer URI plus
some job specific term, that would easily correlate to the IP in (a).
c. to identify each job with a URI without the constraints in (b).
The almost absolute consensus was (a).
I agree that the decision of which way to go is probably less
important than agreeing on the way.
Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: IPP>MOD - Job-URI vs. JOb-ID
Author: JK Martin <jkm at underscore.com> at Internet
Date: 8/16/97 2:18 PM
This issue also concerns me quite a bit, as it appears we have once
again taken a 90-degree turn without sufficient public explanation.
No one has yet to respond to the previous message on this topic from
Randy Turner. As I recall, Randy appeared *very* concerned about this
move, so can we get a discussion going on this list about this apparently
major architectural change?
...jay
----- Begin Included Message -----
From: Roger K Debry <rdebry at us.ibm.com>
To: <ipp at pwg.org>
Subject: IPP>MOD - Job-URI vs. JOb-ID
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 13:01:51 -0400
>From Carl-Uno's minutes of the IETF meeting, it appears that the
issue of Job-URI vs. Job-ID has been thrown up in the air again. We
spent a considerable amount of time working on an implementation
of the job-URI, but were willing to change based on the agreement
made in the Redmond PWG meeting. However, the longer this particular
issue continues to go unresolved, the harder it will be to change our
design, as this is quite a fundamental part of our object model. We can
adapt to changes but not if they continue to drag on. Let's get this one
resolved once and for all or we may end up with multiple solutions being
implemented!
Roger K deBry
Senior Technical Staff Member
Architecture and Technology
IBM Printing Systems
email: rdebry at us.ibm.com
phone: 1-303-924-4080
----- End Included Message -----