Chris,
I think we should leave those discussions to the Job Accounting document, since printer-mandatory-job-attributes is defined in 5100.13 and job-account-id and job-accounting-user-id are defined in 5100.7...
(Smith: I could move printer-mandatory-job-attributes to this specification if you like; at least then we are getting more of the accounting/transaction stuff in one place?)
> On Feb 13, 2020, at 2:06 PM, Rizzo, Christopher <Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com> wrote:
>> Apologies - 1 other question:
>> Should printer-requested-job-attributes be mentioned in regard to adding job-account-id or job-accounting-user-id when one or both of these may be supported but optional? (ie - job-accounting-user-id present in printer-mandatory-job-attributes because can't print without it, but job-account-id in printer-requested-job-attributes because it is optional, but can print without it).
>> Thanks,
> Chris
>> Christopher Rizzo
> Xerox Corporation
> GDG/Discovery/Advance Technology
> 26600 SW Parkway Ave.
> Wilsonville, OR 97070-9251
> Phone: (585) 314-6936
> Email: Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com>> "The realization came over me with full force that a good part of the remainder of my life was going to be spent in finding errors in my own programs."
> -Maurice Wilkes, Memoirs of a Computer Pioneer
>> From: Christopher Rizzo <Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com>
> Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 11:02 AM
> To: Michael Sweet <msweet at msweet.org>, PWG Workgroup <ipp at pwg.org>
> Subject: Re: [IPP] IPP WG Last Call: IPP Transaction-Based Printing Extensions v1.1 (Ends February 13, 2020)
>> Just some comments on this. Hope not too late:
>> 1. Line 230: "Use existing the existing IPP" should be "Use the existing IPP"
> 2. Should section 6.2 include job-account-id and job-accounting-user-id or not because they're in PWG 5100.7 (this spec only defining previously undefined attributes)?
> 3. Should section 6.4 include job-account-id-supported, job-accounting-user-id-supported, job-account-id-default and job-accounting-user-id-default or not because they're in PWG 5100.7 (this spec only defining previously undefined attributes)?
>> Other than these questions, no issues.
>> Thanks,
> Chris
>> Christopher Rizzo
> Xerox Corporation
> GDG/Discovery/Advance Technology
> 26600 SW Parkway Ave.
> Wilsonville, OR 97070-9251
> Phone: (585) 314-6936
> Email: Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com>> "The realization came over me with full force that a good part of the remainder of my life was going to be spent in finding errors in my own programs."
> -Maurice Wilkes, Memoirs of a Computer Pioneer
>> From: ipp <ipp-bounces at pwg.org> on behalf of PWG Workgroup <ipp at pwg.org>
> Reply-To: Michael Sweet <msweet at msweet.org>
> Date: Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 1:39 PM
> To: PWG Workgroup <ipp at pwg.org>
> Subject: [IPP] IPP WG Last Call: IPP Transaction-Based Printing Extensions v1.1 (Ends February 13, 2020)
>> [This Last Call starts today, January 30, 2020 and ends at 10pm PST on February 13, 2020]
>> All,
>> This message starts the IPP workgroup Last Call of the IPP Transaction-Based Printing Extensions v1.1 specification, available at:
>>https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ipptrans11-20200130.docx>https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ipptrans11-20200130.pdf>> This document defines extensions to the Internet Printing Protocol that support the business transaction logic needed for paid, PIN, release, and quota-based printing through local and commercial services.
>> This is an errata update of PWG 5100.16-2013.
>> Please reply to this message with any feedback, which we can review at the following IPP workgroup conference call.
>> Thanks!
>> ________________________
> Michael Sweet
>>>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
________________________
Michael Sweet