Hi Tom,
I agree with your suggested rewording below.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 4:25 PM
To: McDonald, Ira; 'sm at pwg.org'; 'ps at pwg.org'
Subject: RE: ISSUE 17: about server-error-too-many-jobs (0x050B)
[comment on Document Object spec]
Here are the current specifications for these two new error status codes
from the current Document Object spec (circa June 3 with Dennis's comments
added):
13.1 server-error-too-many-jobs (0x050B)
The client has attempted to create a Job using any of the Job Creation
operations which would exceed the capacity of the Printer and/or the policy
for this user or type of Job. The client SHOULD NOT try again later.
DMC ISSUE17: I would have said SHOULD try again later, because resources
might have been freed up. That is, I would have read "too many jobs" as a
resource issue and "too many documents" as a policy issue. If we're saying
not to try again, we should be clear that this error should only be returned
if the problem is not expected to go away.
13.2 server-error-too-many-documents (0x050C)
The client has attempted to create a Document using any of the Document
Creation operations which would exceed the capacity of the Printer for this
Job and/or the policy for this user or type of Job. The client SHOULD NOT
try again later.
For server-error-too-many-jobs: "The client SHOULD NOT try again later"
Dennis proposes: "The client SHOULD try again later."
Michael proposes: Remove the policy possibility from the description and use
'client-error-not-possible' to mean a hard error and use MAY:
The client has attempted to create a Job using any of the Job Creation
operations which would exceed the capacity of the Printer. The client MAY
try again later.
Looking at the status codes descriptions in [rfc2911], I'd suggest:
The client has attempted to create a Job using any of the Job Creation
operations which would exceed the capacity of the Printer. The client MAY
try the unmodified request again at some later point in time with an
expectation that the capacity condition may have changed.
For server-error-too-many-documents: "The client SHOULD NOT try again
later"
Dennis proposes no change.
Michael proposes the same change:
The client has attempted to create a Document using any of the Document
Creation operations which would exceed the capacity of the Printer for this
Job. The client MAY try again later.
How about to align more with [rfc2911]:
The client has attempted to create a Document using any of the Document
Creation operations which would exceed the capacity of the Printer for this
Job. The client MAY try the unmodified request again at some later point in
time with an expectation that the capacity condition may have changed.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:44
To: 'sm at pwg.org'; 'ps at pwg.org'
Subject: SM> FW: IPP> Re: ISSUE 17: about server-error-too-many-jobs
(0x050B)
Hi,
Michael Sweet's comments on 'server-error-too-many-jobs/documents'.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sweet [mailto:mike at easysw.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 11:09 AM
To: Hastings, Tom N
Cc: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: IPP> Re: ISSUE 17: about server-error-too-many-jobs (0x050B)
Hastings, Tom N wrote:
> Michael,
>> Do you have some input on this issue in the Document object spec about
what
> we should say about whether or not the client should try again (later) on
> the proposed new server-error-too-many-jobs (0x050B):
>> 22. About ISSUE17:
> 13.1 server-error-too-many-jobs (0x050B)
> The client has attempted to create a Job using any of the Job Creation
> operations which would exceed the capacity of the Printer and/or the
policy
> for this user or type of Job. The client SHOULD NOT try again later. DMC
> ISSUE17: I would have said SHOULD try again later, because resources might
> have been freed up. That is, I would have read "too many jobs" as a
> resource issue and "too many documents" as a policy issue. If we're
saying
> not to try again, we should be clear that this error should only be
returned
> if the problem is not expected to go away.
>> Good ISSUE! It would be good to get Michael Sweet's input on this, since
he
> requested these error codes.
I think that the status codes for both too-many-jobs and
too-many-documents should be worded such that a client MAY try again
later, not SHOULD or SHOULD NOT. If we want to differentiate hard
and soft errors, I would recommend using server-error-not-possible
to specify that it is not possible to create a new job or document
(i.e. not-possible means don't retry, too-many-foos means you MAY
retry...)
--
______________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike at easysw dot com
Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com