IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Notifications

RE: IPP> Notifications

Turner, Randy (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:29:20 -0800

I remember we talked about maintaining persistent connections to the
server during job processing, as well as possibly having the clients
allocate a socket to receive UDP or TCP - based notifications from a
server. And on your last statement, I disagree that we have a
device-level protocol; Most IPP servers, including your own, will be
implemented on server-based systems, detached from the actual physical
printer. Its possible that some server-based implementations might not
have device-level access or at least accurate realtime access to device
status.

Nonetheless, I would like to see further discussion on this topic via
the mailing list. I personally favor something along the lines of a UDP
message sent to a client socket from the server which includes some type
of encapsulated notification message.

Randy

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Moore [SMTP:paulmo@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 1:05 PM
To: 'Turner, Randy'; 'ipp@pwg.org'
Subject: RE: IPP> Notifications

The minutes dont really discuss it. There is talk about email vs
'IPP
notifications' But no real discussion of how IPP notification
could be done.
A device-level protocol that does not allow Out of band feedback
seems
pretty broken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Turner, Randy [SMTP:rturner@sharplabs.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 11:29 AM
> To: Paul Moore; 'ipp@pwg.org'
> Subject: RE: IPP> Notifications
>
>
> Yes, this was discussed. Several solutions were proposed.
Check out the
> minutes of the IPP meeting that Don just posted.
> I think some of the ideas were included in the minutes.
>
> Randy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Moore [SMTP:paulmo@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 10:51 AM
> To: 'ipp@pwg.org'
> Subject: IPP> Notifications
>
> Has anybody noticed that IPP will be useless for
notifications
> due to the
> asymmetry of the protocol? As currently constituted a
printer
> cannot send an
> unsolicted message to anybody.
>
> Was this discussed later on on the Thursday brainstorm?