IPP> Notifications

[Turner, Randy]

I remember we talked about maintaining persistent connections to the
server during job processing, as well as possibly having the clients
allocate a socket to receive UDP or TCP - based notifications from a
server.  And on your last statement, I disagree that we have a
device-level protocol; Most IPP servers, including your own, will be
implemented on server-based systems, detached from the actual physical
printer. Its possible that some server-based implementations might not
have device-level access or at least accurate realtime access to device
status.


Nonetheless, I would like to see further discussion on this topic via
the mailing list. I personally favor something along the lines of a UDP
message sent to a client socket from the server which includes some type
of encapsulated notification message.


Randy




	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Paul Moore [SMTP:paulmo at microsoft.com]
	Sent:	Tuesday, February 03, 1998 1:05 PM
	To:	'Turner, Randy'; 'ipp at pwg.org'
	Subject:	RE: IPP> Notifications


	The minutes dont really discuss it. There is talk about email vs
'IPP
	notifications' But no real discussion of how IPP notification
could be done.
	A device-level protocol that does not allow Out of band feedback
seems
	pretty broken 


	> -----Original Message-----
	> From:	Turner, Randy [SMTP:rturner at sharplabs.com]
	> Sent:	Tuesday, February 03, 1998 11:29 AM
	> To:	Paul Moore; 'ipp at pwg.org'
	> Subject:	RE: IPP> Notifications
	> 
	> 
	> Yes, this was discussed. Several solutions were proposed.
Check out the
	> minutes of the IPP meeting that Don just posted.
	> I think some of the ideas were included in the minutes.
	> 
	> Randy
	> 
	> 
	> 	-----Original Message-----
	> 	From:	Paul Moore [SMTP:paulmo at microsoft.com]
	> 	Sent:	Tuesday, February 03, 1998 10:51 AM
	> 	To:	'ipp at pwg.org'
	> 	Subject:	IPP> Notifications
	> 
	> 	Has anybody noticed that IPP will be useless for
notifications
	> due to the
	> 	asymmetry of the protocol? As currently constituted a
printer
	> cannot send an
	> 	unsolicted message to anybody. 
	> 
	> 	Was this discussed later on on the Thursday brainstorm?