Hi Smith,
I pretty agree w/ you. If the duration is brief (which was the original
intent of IPP Identify-Printer when proposed), then the cancel is
superfluous.
I don't think we can give a hard upper limit for the duration - instead
I suggest that implementations could support (e.g., via embedded
web server) changing the default times of various actions (e.g.,
blinking lights should probably last longer than audible signals).
I don't see the value in long durations (minutes) - tends to lead to
users cutting wires or taping over LEDs (there's a lively business
among independent mechanics in destroying stupid car alarms,
which studies have shown have no impact on reducing theft).
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 12:30 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <
smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
> Does limiting the duration obviate the need for the additions, then? If
> the duration is brief, why provide a cancel option?
>> Smith
>>>> On 2013-12-10, at 10:17 AM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I was wrong.
>> I agree with Mike and Smith that it's a service-level operation.
>> I also agree with Mike that we should not add "identify duration"
> at all. The identity action should be brief (seconds, not minutes).
> Otherwise, it becomes an annoyance for a shared workgroup
> printer in the modern (barbarian) cubicles style of office.
>> 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 Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <
>smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
>>> I agree with Mike on this. If I am a client and communicating with /
>> using IPP Printers hosted on an IPP print server, I would want the
>> Identify-Printer to map to the IPP Printer, which may or may not be
>> implemented as a sub-system of the physical hardware of the print server
>> (as represented by the System Control Service).
>>>> From that cloud discussion the other day, and this topic, I really feel
>> like we need to have pictures, so that people can discuss topics from
>> unambiguous scenarios. Trying to verbally describe the topology of a graph
>> of edges and vertices can be awfully error prone.
>>>> Smith
>>>>>>>> On 2013-12-10, at 9:36 AM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> Ira,
>>>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>>> I disagree, Identify-Xxx is a service-level operation that causes the
>> identification of any physical device(s) associated with that service. We
>> don't provide device interfaces, just service interfaces...
>>>> BTW - what about conflicts between two different services that receive
>> conflicting Identify-Xxx operations (or cancels)?
>>>>>> AFAIK, coordination of subunits between services is
>> implementation-defined behavior. If one service is using the buzzer then
>> another service has to wait (or error-out) to use it.
>>>> IMHO, cancel should only apply to the identification done by that
>> service, not to all services.
>>>>>>>> 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 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>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> ipp mailing list
>>ipp at pwg.org>>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>>>>> _______________________________________________________________
>> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20131210/1ed06b9e/attachment.html>