Hi Bill,
I agree with you - that's what I was realizing when I wrote my previous
note.
Identify-Xxx is a device-level operation.
BTW - what about conflicts between two different services that receive
conflicting Identify-Xxx operations (or cancels)?
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: 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 Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>wrote:
> Ira,
>> I suggest that what is being identified is the physical device, and that
> the System Control Service is the proper recipient.
>> Bill Wagner
>>>> *From:* ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Ira
> McDonald
> *Sent:* Monday, December 09, 2013 5:37 PM
> *To:* Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect)
> *Cc:* <ipp at pwg.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [IPP] RFC: Identify-Printer mini-extension
>>>> Hi Smith,
>> Tricky. The "identify action duration" would be a new attribute (which
> would require a revision of JPS3 spec - yuck).
>> Mike's right that IPPSIX is the wrong place to do this - the conformance
>> shouldn't have anything to do with IPPSIX.
>> I also don't think that System Control Service should get into this
> business
>> - or maybe I'm crazy and that actually is the *right* place? Should SCS,
>> rather than an individual service, be the target of this device-level
> operation?
>> Someday, we need a lightweight IPP registration for whole new attributes
>> (in an existing attribute group), I suspect.
>>>> Cheers,
>> - Ira
>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> mailto: 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 Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <
>smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
>> IMHO, these look fine. I wonder if the “identify action duration” needs
> to be covered by something? Does the System Control Service need to
> concern itself with this domain?
>> Smith
>>>>> On 2013-12-09, at 12:53 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>> > All,
> >
> > During our last Cloud Imaging Model WG meeting, we discussed having the
> ability to explicitly cancel a previous Identify-Printer operation. The
> consensus during that meeting was to add a new "identify-actions" keyword
> ('cancel') that would cancel any active identification mechanism.
> >
> > In addition, a new "printer-state-reasons" keyword
> ('identifying-printer' was proposed, although given the existing
> 'identify-printer-requested' value I like adding 'identify-printer-active'
> instead) would be added to allow a Client to discover whether a printer is
> currently identifying itself using an action other than 'cancel', which by
> definition stops any active identification and removes the new keyword from
> the "printer-state-reasons" attribute...
> >
> > The official registration would look like this:
> >
> > Attributes (attribute syntax)
> > Keyword Attribute Value Reference
> > ----------------------- ---------
> > identify-actions (1setOf type2 keyword) [PWG5100.13]
> > cancel
> >
> > printer-state-reasons (1setOf type2 keyword) [RFC2911]
> > identify-printer-active
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > (I considered adding this to IPPSIX, but since this has application
> outside of shared infrastructure/cloud deployments I think we should
> register it separately...)
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ipp mailing list
> > ipp at pwg.org> > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20131210/31ea8ca0/attachment.html>