Originally, we said that a paranoid Printer might choose to return no
information about some jobs, but job-uri is special in that it uniquely
identifies the job. So it seems reasonable that if a client asks for
it, the Printer should return it. Paul and I discussed the possibility
that a paranoid Printer might return a special job-uri for secure jobs.
If a client used this job-uri in other operations, the Printer would
recognize it as a special uri that doesn't really reference the job.
This raises the issue as to whether such a special ("fake") job-uri is
also unique or can the same special job-uri be returned for all secure
jobs?
Bob Herriot
> From jkm@underscore.com Thu Jul 17 11:57:40 1997
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:40:10 -0400 (EDT)
> From: JK Martin <jkm@underscore.com>
> To: paulmo@microsoft.com
> Subject: RE: IPP> Job identification mandatory
> Cc: ipp@pwg.org
> X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
> Sender: ipp-owner@pwg.org
> Content-Length: 2097
> X-Lines: 70
>
> Ah, I see. So Roger deBry was right, you're proposing that we mandate
> that an IPP server always return a job ID if requested.
>
> I certainly agree with your (and Bob's) proposal.
>
> ...jay
>
> ----- Begin Included Message -----
>
> From paulmo@microsoft.com Thu Jul 17 14:30 EDT 1997
> From: Paul Moore <paulmo@microsoft.com>
> To: "'JK Martin'" <jkm@underscore.com>
> Cc: ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: IPP> Job identification mandatory
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 11:30:15 -0700
>
> No its not a transaction ID its a job ID. The point is that the current
> model allows a server to refuse to supply a job identification attribute
> - I am proposing that the server always return a job identification
> attribute if so requested.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JK Martin [SMTP:jkm@underscore.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 1997 8:06 AM
> > To: Paul Moore
> > Cc: ipp@pwg.org
> > Subject: Re: IPP> Job identification mandatory
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > Sorry, but I'm a bit confused by what you refer to as a
> > "job identifier". Perhaps I'm incorrectly reading your
> > text, but it sounds like "job identifier" is more of a
> > "transaction identifier".
> >
> > The purpose of the GetJobs operation is to return one or
> > more job identifiers from the target Printer (right?).
> > Then exactly what are you and Bob proposing?
> >
> > So sorry if I'm being a bit dense here.
> >
> > ...jay
> >
> > ----- Begin Included Message -----
> >
> > From ipp-owner@pwg.org Wed Jul 16 20:35 EDT 1997
> > From: Paul Moore <paulmo@microsoft.com>
> > To: "'ipp@pwg.org'" <ipp@pwg.org>
> > Subject: IPP> Job identification mandatory
> > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 17:25:27 -0700
> >
> > Change to model following review of protocol.
> >
> > BobH and I propose that getjobs must always return a unique job
> > identification (either jobid or job URL , see other recent mail) that
> > can be used in subsequent requests.
> >
> > The reason is that most print API work this way and so most clients
> > are
> > structured on this assumption. (Specifcally in the MS world the
> > EnumJobs
> > API always returns a job identifier).
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- End Included Message -----
>
>
> ----- End Included Message -----
>
>