All,
I don’t believe that that the definition of 'guaranteed' is so convoluted that it is not practical to implement. It is implemented in some high end production environments. I believe that 'guaranteed' value is applicable to a small segment of the printing market and not applicable to the IPP everywhere or PWG Raster discussion.
Pete
Peter Zehler
Xerox Research Center Webster
Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com<mailto:Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com>
Office: +1 (585) 265-8755
Mobile: +1 (585) 329-9508
FAX: +1 (585) 265-7441
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-25E
Webster NY, 14580-9701
From: ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Ira McDonald
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:48 PM
To: William A Wagner; Ira McDonald
Cc: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [IPP] Potential errata/update for PWG Raster Format and/or IPP Everywhere specs
Hi,
I agree with Bill's comments.
I suggest that the Implementors Guide should document that the intended
meaning of 'attempted' in RFC 2911 was and is 'best-effort'. There is no
wiggle room in RFC 2911 (page 139), in my reading, that the Printer can
say 'attempted' and then NOT make the attempt.
I agree that making 'attempted' REQUIRED is cold comfort to Clients.
I suggest that the definition of 'guaranteed' (NOT defined in RFC 2911,
but rather in section 11 of JSP2, PWG 5100.11-2010) is so convoluted
that it is not practical to implement.
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<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 Wed, May 21, 2014 at 12:26 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net<mailto:wamwagner at comcast.net>> wrote:
As Ira suggests, I believe that it is very difficult to “guarantee” successful override, considering the potential complexity and variations in the PDL. But ‘attempted’ is squishy and making it REQUIRED might tempt some to report ‘attempted’ even when the attempt is halfhearted (or non-existent). That would make the value even more unreliable. Perhaps we should have allowed a value of ‘best effort’ meaning that the printer will really try. But I think making ‘attempted’ a minimum REQUIRED response may just increase uncertainty. Better that the User understand that he is stuck with what is in the PDL if there is not very good likelihood that the overrides will be completely successful.
Thanks,
Bill Wagner
From: ipp-bounces at pwg.org<mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org> [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org<mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org>] On Behalf Of Ira McDonald
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:42 AM
To: Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect); Ira McDonald
Cc: <ipp at pwg.org<mailto:ipp at pwg.org>>
Subject: Re: [IPP] Potential errata/update for PWG Raster Format and/or IPP Everywhere specs
Hi Smith,
We've never made "pdl-override-supported" have 'guaranteed' as REQUIRED
(even in IPP/2.1 or IPP/2.2 levels), because it's binary.
If you claim that your Printer supports 'guaranteed' then you have to be able to
*successfully* intercept and override everything in your interpreters (vanishingly
unlikely in PDF, for example).
I agree with Mike that I've never seen a printer in the wild that actually supported
'guaranteed'.
I also agree that should make 'attempted' a REQUIRED value and 'guaranteed'
a RECOMMENDED value (explaining in the Implementors Guide that there are
practical limitations w/ third-party interpreters to perfect override).
Cheers,
- Ira
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<mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094<tel:734-944-0094>
Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434<tel:906-494-2434>
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <smith.kennedy at hp.com<mailto:smith.kennedy at hp.com>> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Since “attempted” is so squishy, why not mandate “guaranteed”? Including “attempted” seems like a loophole.
Smith
/**
Smith Kennedy
ATB Wireless Architect - PPS
Hewlett-Packard Co.
*/
On 2014-05-21, at 7:42 AM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com<mailto:msweet at apple.com>> wrote:
> All,
>> It has come to my attention that neither the IPP Everywhere nor the PWG Raster Format specs explicitly call out required values for the "pdl-override-supported" Printer attribute. This attribute specifies whether the Printer can override embedded job ticket information (such as media size) when requested in a Job via the "ipp-attribute-fidelity" or "job-mandatory-attributes" Job Template attributes.
>> Generally speaking, Printers SHOULD support PDL override for the standard PDLs in IPP Everywhere, including PWG Raster, JPEG, and PDF. Typically this means forcing prints to a single media/size or forcing simplex/duplex output, and is particularly important for JPEG.
>> My recommendation is for us to add the following conformance statement in a future revision of the IPP Everywhere specification:
>> pdl-override-supported (type2 keyword)
>> When reporting capabilities for the 'application/pdf', 'image/jpeg', or 'image/pwg-raster'
> MIME media types, Printers MUST report either 'attempted' or 'guaranteed' for the
> "pdl-override-supported" Printer attribute,
>> Thoughts?
>> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org<mailto:ipp at pwg.org>
>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
_______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
ipp at pwg.org<mailto: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/20140521/70033feb/attachment.html>