Hi Tom,
My comments are inline below.
Except to note that the operation attribute
is correctly named "job-ids" (singular "job"
and plural "ids"). Please make sure to get
this right.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
winter:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
summer:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Tom Hastings <tom.hastings at verizon.net> wrote:
> I’ve uploaded v8 of the new Cancel-Jobs, enhanced Get-Jobs and Purge-Jobs
> uploaded at:
>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/Cancel-Jobs-Get-Jobs-Purge-Jobs-enhancements-v8-20091007.doc>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/Cancel-Jobs-Get-Jobs-Purge-Jobs-enhancements-v8-20091007.pdf>>>> I’d like to get resolutions Thursday, as I finish the rest of Set 2 on
> Thursday.
>>>> ISSUES for the new Cancel-Jobs operation are:
>>>> ISSUE: OK that the Printer MUST ignore “jobs-ids” if “my-jobs” = ‘true’ is
> supplied, rather than reject the request and return the
> ‘client-error-bad-request” status?
>
<ira> Yes, OK - a legacy Printer wouldn't understand "job-ids" (in Get-Jobs)
and would ignore it, so the above is the right behavior.
</ira>
>>> ISSUE: OK that the Printer MUST reject a request that does NOT specify a
> list of jobs and does NOT specify “my-jobs” = ‘true’? What if the
> requesting user is the operator? Should this case cancel all jobs?
>> In other words, is it OK that the Cancel-Jobs operation does not allow the
> Operator to cancel all jobs?
>
<ira> Cancel-Jobs is NEW, so we can make it solid. Missing required
operation attributes must be a client error - it's NOT desirable that
Cancel-Jobs be able to cancel *all* jobs.
</ira>
>>> ISSUE: OK that the Printer cancels the ones owned, but not the ones not
> owned? Then the Printer can repeatedly perform Cancel-Job operations on
> each job in the list, rather than checking the entire list before canceling
> any
>
<ira> No, bad choice. The Printer MUST immediately check that all members
of "job-ids" are owned by the end user (if not operator or admin requester),
so that it returns a privilege error and does NOT cancel ANY jobs.
</ira>
>>>>> ISSUES for the Get-Jobs enhancement:
>>>> ISSUE: OK that the Printer MUST ignore “jobs-ids” if “my-jobs” = ‘true’ is
> supplied, rather than reject the request and return the
> ‘client-error-bad-request” status?
>
<ira> Yes, OK - this is compatibile with legacy Printers that don't understand
(and must ignore) "job-ids".
</ira>
>>> Thanks,
>> Tom
>>>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.