We agree that we don't want to mandate an accurate time.
How about adding a clarification to the Printer's "printer-current-time"
attribute like:
The accuracy of the value MAY be on the order of plus or minus five
minutes.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: papowell@astart4.astart.com [mailto:papowell@astart4.astart.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 17:29
To: hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com;
SHIVAUN_ALBRIGHT@HP-Roseville-om2.om.hp.com
Cc: ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> Last Call Comment: Job and Printer time attributes
shou ld be REQ UIRED
> From ipp-owner@pwg.org Tue Apr 27 12:05:43 1999
> From: "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
> To: SHIVAUN_ALBRIGHT@HP-Roseville-om2.om.hp.com
> Cc: ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: IPP> Last Call Comment: Job and Printer time attributes shou
> ld be REQ UIRED
> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:00:22 -0700
>
> Shivaun,
>
>
> How about adding the following sentence to the "printer-current-time"
> attribute:
>
> An implementation MAY support this attribute by obtaining the date and
time
> by any number of implementation-dependent means at startup or
subsequently.
> Examples include: (1) an internal date time clock, (2) from the operator
at
> startup, (3) from HTTP headers supplied in client requests, and (4) from
the
> network, using NTP [RFC1305] or DHCP option 32 [RFC2132] that returns the
> address of the NTP server. If an implementation supports this attribute
by
> obtaining the current time from the network (at startup or later), but the
> time is not available, then the implementation MUST return the value of
this
> attribute using the out-of-band 'no-value' meaning not configured. See
the
> beginning of section 4.1.
>
> Since the new "date-and-time-at-xxx" Job Description attribute refer to
the
> "printer-current-time", they will be covered also.
I am totally blown away at all this discussion about time.
I will simply note that of the various locations that I have
visited (over a couple of dozen this month), only 1 (one) had the
SERVER time within 1 minute of WWV, and this was because it periodically
went out and got it from a WWV receiver.
I think that this standards group needs a bit of a reality check.
I suspect strongly that the 'no-value' will become the operational
standard.
Patrick Powell