No subject

No subject

harryl at us.ibm.com harryl at us.ibm.com
Fri Aug 14 02:28:33 EDT 1998


>From ipp-owner at pwg.org Thu Aug 13 22:29:21 1998
From: Harry Lewis <harryl at us.ibm.com>
To: <ipp at pwg.org>
Cc: Steve Gebert <stevegeb at us.ibm.com>, Carl Kugler <kugler at us.ibm.com>,
        <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.coM>
Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - Questions on IPP
Message-ID: <5030100024532553000002L032*@MHS>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:19:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-ipp at pwg.org

Carl-Uno, here is my response to your questions...

1) Is it really necessary to keep the "Validate-Job" operation as a =
MUST to
implement? The "Get-Printer-Attributes" operation seems to provide all =
the
functionality that is needed.

HRL> Validate job is intended to pertain to more than just printer =
attributes.
It should also cover print job attributes (like n-up, for example). =
Isn't
Validate-Job akin to checking the "job ticket" whereas =
Get-Printer-Attributes
is akin to determining the device configuration?

2) Can you implement the operations "Create-Job", "Send-Document" and
"Send-URI", without the need to support multiple documents? This could =
be
useful for environments where you have long jobs, but do not need =
support
for multiple documents.

HRL> The model document supports the notion of a Create-Job operation =
followed
by only one Send-Document operation as semantically equivalent to a =
Print-Job
operation. It cautions regarding performance, however. If you are =
asking is it
ok to support Creat-Job, Send-Doc with only one document - Yes. If you =
are
asking is it ok to support Create-Job but LIMIT Send-Dco to only one
document... I'd say that would be a non-no!

3) What was the rationale for making the "printer-up-time" attribute a
REQUIRED attribute, considering that the other 3 attributes
"time-at-creation", "time-at-processing", and "time-at-completed", with
which it is associated, are all OPTIONAL?

HRL> Don't know for sure but I suspect this attempts to make a running =
"time
marker" available for monitoring, tracking accounting etc... without =
mandating
all the possible time recording points on each IPP device. This si =
somewhat
analogous to the sysUpTime concept in MIB-II.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems



More information about the Ipp mailing list
Our website uses cookies on your device to give you the best user experience. By using our website, you agree to the placement of these cookies. To learn more, read our privacy policy. Read Privacy Policy