Ira,
Thanks for your response. I apparently misunderstand the meaning of
"off-line".
I think one difficulty is that we each read this stuff in the context of
what we recall of what came before, and that may be different. For example,
I find no definition of a printer "down" state in IPP, although there is a
"Shutdown" state/condition defined as a printer-state-reasons response.
'shutdown': Someone has removed a Printer object from service, and
the device may be powered down or physically removed. In this
state, a Printer object MUST NOT produce printed output, and
unless the Printer object is realized by a print server that is
still active, the Printer object MUST perform no other
operations requested by a client, including returning this
value.
To me, that would suggest that an object that is "shutdown" (the same as
down?) does not itself accept requests.
On the other hand, I can find no explicit definition in IPP of "off-line"
(indeed, I recall intentional avoidance of "on-line" and "off-line" since
they did mean different things to different people.) However, there is a
Job-state-reasons response defined:
'service-off-line': The Printer is off-line and accepting no
jobs. All 'pending' jobs are put into the 'pending-held'
state. This situation could be true if the service's or
document transform's input is impaired or broken.
That does not disagree with your contention that an off-line service could
accept non-job requests. But does that mean the "down" state is not in the
"Off-line" phase? Or am I taking the terms out of context?
But then, if a Service in Offline/Down can accept and process requests other
than Job requests, how is this different from the Service being in any state
with a "not accepting jobs" condition?
With respect to WIMS efforts, note that the Counter Spec Fig 2 specifically
shows the MFD Services as being contained in a Server. On the other hand,
the Schema includes a System.xsd, but no mention (that I can find) of a
Server.
I guess there is no way to be consistent with a past that is itself
inconsistent. The best we can do is to try to be internally consistent, but
that may be difficult too.
Thanks,
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:40 PM
To: William A Wagner; Ira McDonald
Cc: mfd at pwg.org
Subject: Re: MFD> Scan Service Sectionr 10
Hi Bill,
This all sounds pretty good to me.
One point - in IPP, DPA, and SM/1.0, an Offline/Down
Service *can* accept and process incoming Admin
Requests (like Startup). But it cannot accept (and
must reject) incoming Job Requests (like CreateScanJob).
This has been true in IPP Model from the beginning and is
discussed in some detail in IPP System Admin (RFC 3998).
Ah - I see Pete has reverted to pure DPA terminology
and represented Server object, rather than System object
(WIMS and PSI terminology) - same meaning - I still think
System is a clearer term, but oh well...
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
email: 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 Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:24 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>
wrote:
> Ira, Pete and the MFD group,
>> I very much wanted to get out a first cut Overall MFD document prior to
the
> face-to-face. It has been a very useful exercise for me, and I think my
> understanding of what was intended is improving, although there are still
> some dark spots. Note that it was my intent to provide a general context
for
> the Service models and, in doing so, to clarify a few areas. It was not my
> intent to modify or embellish the model as manifest by the Scan Spec and
the
> schema.
>> In continuing to work on the "overall" document (rigorous or not), and
> assenting to Ira's idea of a MFD entity other than a service that starts a
> service, is not this entity identified as the "Server", since the Scan
Spec
> says "the multifunction device is represented as the Server element in the
> PWG Semantic Model Schema"?
>> Further, if I understand Ira's suggestion on the startup sequence, it
goes:
> a. A client sends a StartupService to a System (perhaps implicitly
> by powering up the MFD)
> b. The System internally creates a scan service in an offline
> phase/unknown state
> c. The Service, internally and on its own accord transitions to an
> offline phase/down state (but is unable to respond to state requests since
> it of off-line...Perhaps the System can respond to a state request? Does
the
> System respond to the StartupService now, perhaps saying that state is
> down?)
> c. The System internally sends a StartupScanService to the
Service,
> which causes the Service to move to Online/Idle) Is this the point that
the
> System responds to the StartupService request, or is it dependent on how
> long it takes the service get to an on-line state?
>> I would be interested in the sense of the working group in what we are
> attempting to show with the model. If my tendency to "black box"
> characterization is correct, that is, we do not get into internal
> implementation aspects beyond what is necessary to characterize behavior,
> then the items of interest are just StartupService and the response to
> StartupService. The rest is implementation dependent.
>> Regardless, it would seem that the StartupService [type=XService] is a
> System (or Server) input request since the Service is non-existent at this
> point. StartupXService would seem to be a System (or Server) output
request
> sent internally since the Service is in an off-line phase.
>> Clarification on what how the group would like to deal with these
interfaces
> would be helpful.
>> Thanks,
>> Bill Wagner
>>>> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:44 AM
> To: William A Wagner; Ira McDonald
> Cc: mfd at pwg.org> Subject: Re: MFD> Scan Service Sectionr 10
>> Hi Bill,
>> There is a need for considerable rigor in some top MFD
> Requirements/Model/Whatnot
> document, because it needs to be able to be *normatively* referenced
> for state diagrams,
> basic state tables, operation lifecycle, etc. by future Fax Service,
> Copy, Email, etc.
>> This Chapter 10 model stuff from Scan Service belongs in that document.
>> If what you wish to write is truly informal, then someone else needs
> to write the above
> PWG Best Practices document - or we keep repeating term definitions
(awful)
> and
> the model in each service. There was a strong consensus against
> repetition in the
> December PWG meeting MFD sessions, I thought.
>> About Startup.
>> How about if we do briefly describe the System object in Scan Service
> (as the top
> management entity in an MFD). Then we say that a System object processes
an
> incoming StartupService (type=ScanService) request by creating and
executing
> an
> instance of ScanService (in an implementation-dependent manner), which
> begins
> in Offline / Unknown and transitions to (during initialization) to
> Offline / Down.
>> Then the System sends a StartupScanService operation to the ScanService to
> actually self-test, advertise, and move to Online / Idle. The
> StartupScanService
> operation completes more or less immediately (within seconds) and
> ScanService
> completes testing and advertising subsequently. Otherwise,
> StartupScanService
> may be pending for minutes. Worse the original StartupService would be
> pending
> all that time. This is why IPP System Admin operations (and DPA) MUST
> complete
> after validating input parameters, local resources, and (possibly) a
> few directory
> lookups, and IPP printer-state-reasons record that the activity is
> still in-progress.
>> Anyway, some more thoughts.
>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
> email: 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, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:45 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Ira,
>>>> I am sorry, I am not following you at all.
>>>> I made no suggestion that the state tables be deleted. Indeed, insofar as
>> the state of the Service affects the response to interfaces/operation
>> requests, I agree that the states and the actions effecting transitions
be
>> clearly stated.
>>>> I made no objection to maintaining that StartupScanService goes to the
>> System to initiate a Scan Service instantiation; I do maintain that, if
> that
>> is the path, it should be identified as such and System should be defined
> in
>> the document.
>>>> Since Down is in the Offline phase, I find it confusing that a Service
in
>> the Down state would accept SOAP requests.
>>>> There currently are no references to ISO 10175. To the extent that
>> information in that document is applicable, I have no problem to
referring
>> to it. I do have a problem in assuming the reader has full familiarity
> with
>> contents of that document to the extent that terms do not need to be
> defined
>> in the Scan Service document, indeed not even by reference.
>>>> Including a DeleteService (directed to a system) is nice for a
> symmetrical
>> model, but it is not in the current ScanService document, nor would I
> expect
>> a DeleteService request to be an operation in a typical implementation.
It
>> is not clear that much would be gained by explicitly adding it to the
>> ScanService document, although it might be useful for other services,
>> particularly if you have a system where there may be multiple
> instantiations
>> of a given service. I would leave that for general discussion.
>>>> Finally, my comments on the Scan Service Theory of Operation were
intended
>> to address areas that I found confusing and areas that appeared
> inconsistent
>> with other parts of the document. I took such issues to be a result of
not
>> updating the chapter as the rest of the document matured. It was not my
>> intent to change or embellish the model.
>>>> I see the "General MFD Service" document as a less rigorous overview,
>> dealing with general concepts applicable to models of multiple Services
> and
>> with how the various Services fit within a Multifunction Device.
> Certainly,
>> some of these issues will come up when we discuss my first draft (which I
>> had better get cracking on).
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Bill Wagner
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:32 PM
>> To: William A Wagner; Ira McDonald
>> Cc: mfd at pwg.org>> Subject: Re: MFD> Scan Service Sectionr 10
>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>> I hope you're not suggesting we delete the state
>> tables?
>>>> We could certainly *bend* the operations (e.g., to let
>> StartupScanService be an operation received by a
>> ScanService in Initial / Down state).
>>>> But in the real world of WSDL bindings, that won't work!
>>>> A service can only receive an incoming WSDL (SOAP)
>> request when it's ALREADY instantiated, addressable,
>> and at least Down.
>>>> I believe that our MFD Model should have a first-class
>> System object that receives StartupService (with a param
>> for what type of service) and DeleteService (to really
>> remove a Down service instance).
>>>> I do NOT see the problem with references to ISO 10175
>> Part 1 (Printing Ops) and Part 3 (Admin Ops). This is the
>> underpinning of most all IPP attributes and operations and
>> therefore of the PWG Semantic Model v1.0 itself.
>>>> Cheers,
>> - Ira
>>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
>> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
>> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>> email: 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, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:31 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Ira,
>>>>>> Sorry, I am not following you. What I was attempting, in what little way
> I
>>> can, is to have the Scan Service document at least consistent within
>> itself.
>>> If my attempt has been unsuccessful, I will most willingly drop the
>>> suggested changes.
>>>>>> I agree that it is good to also have the document consistent with
related
>>> documents; but one cannot assume that readers are all familiar with the
>>> various other documents that you reference, at least not to the extent
>> that
>>> terms and concepts in those documents are common knowledge and need not
> be
>>> defined (at least by reference.. but that can get cumbersome)
>>>>>> The term "System" as a formal object is not defined in the Scan Service
>>> document. The word system is appears to be used in a general sense,
>> although
>>> perhaps this is just my interpretation. Indeed, I wonder if these uses
of
>>> the word, although they may be derived from other definitive
>> specifications,
>>> make sense.
>>>>>> 1831 Pending - the job has been accepted by the system and is
>>> awaiting system resources before it can start processing
>>>>>> 2276 Aborted - The Document has been aborted by the system,
...
>>>>>> Neither does the Scan Service document use the term Startup Event
(except
>>> cryptically in the State table) although it does use Startup() in the
>> State
>>> Diagram and define StartupScanService as an (optional) operation. (How
is
>>> the service "created" if there is no Startup operation?)
>>>>>> I find your explanation that "Startup *event* (not operation) arrives at
>> the
>>> Service object in Initial phase / Unknown state..." confusing
considering
>>> your statement that it is the "StartupScanService operation... sent to a
>>> System (NOT a ScanService) that creates a new instance of a ScanService
> in
>>> the Initial phase..." If StartupScanService creates a service, how can
> the
>>> Startup *event* arrive at the Service...unless of course the Startup
> event
>>> is a secondary result of the Startup operation, occurring after the
>>> operation has already created the service. Or perhaps the Startup event
> is
>>> completely independent from the Startup operation?
>>>>>> But I really question whether all this is germane. I think it is
> important
>>> for the specification define the external interfaces and how the service
>> (or
>>> system) responds to them. I think it desirable that the specification
not
>> be
>>> self inconsistent or unnecessarily confusing. I think that attempts to
>>> define the internal implementation beyond what is necessary to
>> characterize
>>> black-box behaiour are unnecessary, will usually be ignored, and may
> cause
>>> the document to be ignored. This of course is just my opinion.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Bill Wagner
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:51 AM
>>> To: William A Wagner; Ira McDonald
>>> Cc: mfd at pwg.org>>> Subject: Re: MFD> Scan Service Sectionr 10
>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>> The System object is defined in WIMS and also in SM/2.0 schema
>>> and has been for years.
>>>>>> Miracle happens is bad design - so MFD services that are created
>>> AFTER the device is installed MUST be based on operations that
>>> are targeted to the System object (same semantics as a Server
>>> object in ISO 10175-Part3).
>>>>>> My Note (1) says that Startup *event* (not operation) arrives at the
>>> Service object in Initial phase / Unknown state, which exactly follows
>>> the state transition tables and notes in ISO 10175-Part3.
>>>>>> The alternative is to break with DPA and show that a Service object
>>> comes into existence in the Initial phase / Down state (and receives
>>> the Startup event). But that transition from Unknown to Down is the
>>> one (in DPA) that does the one-time initialization of data structures.
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>> - Ira
>>>>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
>>> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
>>> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>>> email: 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, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:39 AM, William A Wagner
<wamwagner at comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Ira,
>>>>>>>> 1. Yes, you had made the point before that StartupScanService was sent
> to
>>> a
>>>> (undefined?) system, not to the service that is being started. However,
>>> the
>>>> detailed state diagram (Fig 27) indicates that "Startup" takes the
>> service
>>>> from Down to Idle. There is no indication of what takes service from
>>> Unknown
>>>> to Down. From a practical state, I questioned the Unknown to Down state
>>>> transition prior to going to Idle. To address StartupScanService,
>> perhaps
>>>> line 5 should read: "On creation by a StartupScanService request, the
>> Scan
>>>> Service enters its Initial phase..."? Would acceptable wording on Line
> 7
>>>> be: "After successful initialization, the Scan enters the Online
>>> state..."
>>>>>>>> Pete's 22 Jan version includes RestartScanService so I expect that that
>>>> should be mentioned.
>>>>>>>> 2. I understand your distinction, but the detailed state diagram shows
>>> that
>>>> pause() and C.Critial effect the transition to Stopped. How about if we
>>> keep
>>>> it simple here in the text and just say "...either a Critical event
> is
>>>> generated" and avoid getting into the specific notation of the detailed
>>>> state discussion?
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Bill Wagner
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-mfd at pwg.org [mailto:owner-mfd at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Ira
>>> McDonald
>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 10:28 PM
>>>> To: William A Wagner; Ira McDonald
>>>> Cc: mfd at pwg.org>>>> Subject: Re: MFD> Scan Service Sectionr 10
>>>>>>>> Hi Bill and Pete.
>>>>>>>> Bill - I like all of your new text.
>>>>>>>> However, there are two serious problems in existing text:
>>>>>>>> (1) Second paragraph at line line 5 of page 2 is just wrong
>>>>>>>> It is a StartupScanService operation (spelled that way) sent
>>>> to a System (NOT a ScanService) that creates a new instance
>>>> of a ScanService in the Initial phase, causes self-test, and finally
>>>> transition to Online phase / Idle state. The ScanService itself
>>>> does NOT perform a start-up operation (line 7). It is handling
>>>> the single E.startup *event* sent to it by the System (while in
>>>> in the Initial phase / Unknown state).
>>>>>>>> If we keep it, a RestartScanService operation could be sent
>>>> to a ScanService (to recover from a Shutdown to Offline
>>>> phase / Down state). See the notes on lines 1628 to 1639
>>>> on pages 66 and 67 of lcrc-mfdscanmodel10-20090119.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Recurring problem of reading the terms in state tables
>>>>>>>> The notation key in the Scan Service spec for the state table
>>>> is at line 1618 page 66 in lcrc-mfdscanmodel10-20090119.pdf
>>>>>>>> For example at line 12 in page 2 of your draft, we see:
>>>>>>>> "...either a C.Critical event is generated"
>>>>>>>> The expression "C.Critical" means a *passive* Condition (C)
>>>> (i.e., a ScanService.StateReasons value) is TRUE that a Critical
>>>> alert is now pending. While, the expression "~C.Critical" means
>>>> that any NOT (~) Critical Condition is now pending.
>>>>>>>> The expression "E.Critical" means that an *active* Event (E)
>>>> that is Critical has just occurred. Conversely "~E.Critical" means
>>>> that any non-Critical (i.e., warning) event has just occurred.
>>>>>>>> So "C.Critical event" is confused.
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>> - Ira
>>>>>>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
>>>> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
>>>> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>>>> email: 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 Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:26 PM, William A Wagner
> <wamwagner at comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Considering the decisions at yesterday's conference call with respect
> to
>>>>> "submitting a job", I modified the proposed rework of Section 10 of
the
>>>> Scan
>>>>> Service document. This rework (only in markup) is posted as
>>>>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/ScanServiceTheoryOfOp-revB.pdf.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Wagner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: owner-mfd at pwg.org [mailto:owner-mfd at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
Zehler,
>>>>> Peter
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:38 PM
>>>>> To: mfd at pwg.org>>>>> Subject: MFD> Update to Agenda for MFD Teleconference, Thursday 1/29
>> 3:00
>>>>> EDT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There will be an MFD conference call at 3:00 PM EDT (12:00 PM PDT)
this
>>>>> Thursday. The meeting is held in accord with the PWG Intellectual
>>>> Property
>>>>> Policy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note the NEW Teleconference number and access code are now used.
>>>>>>>>>> Please contact me if you do not have the new number and pass code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agenda:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Identify Minute Taker
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Approval of minutes from last teleconference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/minutes/pwg-mfd-minutes-20090115.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Agenda bashing
>>>>>>>>>> 4. Discuss syntax of JobPhoneNumber on line 2182 of Scan specification
>>>>>>>>>> 5. Discuss open ended REQUIREMENT governed by a third party (End User)
>>>>> policy on line 2788-2790 of Scan specification
>>>>>>>>>> 6. Discuss Bill's comments on in Resource Service
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/nancy-Proposed-Resolution-for-Bill-W-co
>>>> mments-for-Resource-Service-20090127.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>> b) Discussion of Testing State, transition in and out, and
method
>>> of
>>>>> transition Part of both Resource and Scan Service discussion)
>>>>>>>>>> 7. Discussion on Scan Service State and proposed change to section 10
> of
>>>> the
>>>>> specification
>>>>>>>>>> a) Chose between the existing text, proposed text or arrive at
>> some
>>>>> other consensus.
>>>>>>>>>> Existing text is section 10
>>>>> <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/lcrc-mfdscanmodel10-20090122.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>> Proposed change is available at
>>>>> <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/ScanServiceTheoryOfOp.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>> 8. Discuss any comments on the Resource Service interim draft.
>> Objective
>>>> is
>>>>> to move to the Last Call version for review at the Face to Face.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/wd-mfdresourcemodel10-20090115.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>> 9. Next steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Click Here to Join Live Meeting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><https://www.livemeeting.com/cc/xerox/join?id=PWG_MFD&role=attend&pw=PQ%25%3
>>>> EFj5sN>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Zehler
>>>>>>>>>> Xerox Research Center Webster
>>>>> Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com>>>>> Voice: (585) 265-8755
>>>>> FAX: (585) 265-7441
>>>>> US Mail: Peter Zehler
>>>>> Xerox Corp.
>>>>> 800 Phillips Rd.
>>>>> M/S 128-25E
>>>>> Webster NY, 14580-9701
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>