On Oct 8, 2009, at 10:31 AM, Ira McDonald wrote:
>> ...
>> 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>
I don't like doing this without some indication there is a problem.
Returning client-error-conflicting-attributes is an alternate way to
go without saying "bad request", or if we want to allow this (and
ignore job-ids) then we should return successful-ok-ignored-or-
substituted-attributes with job-ids in the unsupported group of the
response.
Moreover, Cancel-Jobs is a NEW operation, so we should do it right.
>> 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>
Huh? We *want* a way for an administrator to cancel all jobs without
purging the job history. Otherwise there is no way to atomically
cancel all jobs on a printer...
>> 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>
Right, we agree here...
>> 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>
Same issue here as for Cancel-Jobs, but I am OK returning successful-
ok-ignored-or-substituted-attributes since this is an existing
operation.
___________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20091008/23d1dc8e/attachment-0001.html>