IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> MOD - Updated Section 15.3 from Bob, Scott, Roger,

RE: IPP> MOD - Updated Section 15.3 from Bob, Scott, Roger,

Zehler,Peter (pzehler@channels.mc.xerox.com)
Wed, 10 Dec 1997 04:58:34 PST

Scott, Carl,
I must have missed the original posting. If the question is "Do we
need a Validate-Job operation?" I do have an opinion. I believe this
would be very useful for large jobs across the Internet where fidelity
is required. I also see this useful in intranets and long job printing.

I was under the impression that Paul Moore wanted this operation to
initiate security challenges. I would assume any operation could
accomplish this.
I hope we leave it in and let implementations of IPP print systems
determine its viability. There is very little overhead for support of
this operation.
Pete

__________________________________
Email: pzehler@channels.mc.xerox.com
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
Webster NY, 14580-9701
Voice: (716) 265-8755
FAX: (716)265-8792
__________________________________
"I always wanted to be somebody,
but I should have been more specific."
Lily Tomlin
__________________________________

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Isaacson [SMTP:SISAACSON@novell.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 12:24 AM
> To: ipp@pwg.org; kugler@us.ibm.com
> Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - Updated Section 15.3 from Bob, Scott,
> Roger,
>
> Carl has suggested that there might not be a need Validate-Job.
>
> I haven't seen any public responses? Does silence mean AGREE or
> DISAGREE?
> Or is
> everyone like me - don't know yet.
>
> Carl also asks:
>
> >>> Carl Kugler <kugler@us.ibm.com> 12/05 9:26 AM >>>
> > Side question: does an IPP error response have an HTTP status code
> of
> > Successful "200 OK"?
>
> The answer to this is YES. The HTTP POST worked fine. The
> "application/ipp" body within
> the POST had the error.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>