I too evidentially left the New York meeting a few minutes too early (to
catch a flight that was cancelled). I would have opposed INDP as the
mandatory notification and believe that, for true internet operation, Mail
To is the only reasonable choice. So if it is to be decided on the list, my
vote is for mail to.
Of course, the only vote that counts is the customers. Is IPP a readily
usable service that provides for internet print job delivery and appropriate
notification with a minimum of special code and dealing with the IS
department?
William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
Director of Technology
Imaging Division
NETsilicon, Inc.
781-398-4588
-----Original Message-----
From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 8:54 AM
To: henrik.holst@i-data.com
Cc: ipp@pwg.org; peter.ultved@i-data.com
Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
Henrik:
Perhaps you had left at that point but a vote was taken and INDP was
selected as
the mandatory noticification method pending finalization through discussion
on
the e-mail list.
As far as firewalls are concerned, passing or not passing through them is
actually irrelevant but ...... it can be enabled as desired because we plan
for
INDP to be on a specific port.
**********************************************
* Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
* Chair, Printer Working Group *
* Chair, IEEE MSC *
* *
* Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 859-232-4808 (phone) 859-232-6740 (fax) *
* (Former area code 606 works until 10/1) *
**********************************************
henrik.holst%i-data.com@interlock.lexmark.com on 06/21/2000 03:52:40 AM
To: ipp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com,
peter.ultved%i-data.com@interlock.lexmark.com
cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
Well it was my understanding that we didn't agree on a mandatory method.
And the INDP method
won't go through a firewall, so if you are searching for a mandatory method
I would say MAILTO.
Henrik
"Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com>@pwg.org on 20-06-2000 17:43:51
Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
To: "IPP Discussion List (E-mail)" <IPP@pwg.org>
cc:
Subject: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
All,
I am working the content planning for the IPP Bake-Off. I want to be sure
that there is PWG wide agreement on the notification issue.
It is my understanding that INDP is the mandated IPP notification method.
There were some minor updates that have been agreed to and we are awaiting
the final version of the document for PWG last call. The minor changes are
documented in the meeting minutes from May meeting of the PWG. This
upcoming INDP document will be the document that the notification section
of
the Bake-Off will use as a base.
Is this correct or did I misunderstand?
Pete
Peter Zehler
XEROX
Xerox Architecture Center
Email: Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com
Voice: (716) 265-8755
FAX: (716) 265-8792
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 139-05A
Webster NY, 14580-9701
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 21 2000 - 10:43:01 EDT