> I think this is a good analysis. I agree that since remote users
> can't do much about a job, an email notification that the job is
> complete is sufficient. Perhaps to save confusion on the terms
> local and remote, we could use the term email-notification-uri,
> with the description that this is intended for users who are remote
> from the printer, who only need notification that print is complete,
> that they do not need this immediately, i.e. they are satisfied to
> have the notification handled by email and delivered at whenever
> they happen to open their email. Local users could use this
> scheme as well if this is the level of notification they wanted.
I think it's confusing the layering to have an 'email-notification-uri',
since the point of using a uri is to be able to specify a resource and
have the resource identifier include the mechanism by which the resource
is to be contacted (email if 'mailto' and http post if 'http', as examples.)
For interoperability with Internet Fax, using Message Disposition Notifications
as a kind of disposition notification for printing seems perfectly reasonable.
The language and syntax is capable of conveying both a human readable
and machine sensible notification.
I suppose the only problem is trying to find the equivalent of the 'message-id'
within an IPP request.
Larry
--
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter