Carl-Uno & All,
We do not need the final version of the specification to carry on a
discussion of the requirements for selecting a mandated notification
mechanism for IPP. The final tweaks to the document should not stand in the
way of this group arriving at a final decision for this issue. The
modifications that are going to be made to the INDP document have already
been listed on the mailing list. The recommendation for the mandated IPP
notification mechanism has also been sent out on the list. I just have not
seen any discussion on it and wanted to make sure that it does get discussed
and resolved. We have a Bake-Off coming in which notification is slated to
be tested. The sooner we get closure on this, the sooner implementation can
proceed.
My preference is that INDP be mandated. I feel that programmatic
notification is critical to the development of robust IPP applications. One
of those applications would be QUALDOCS. In the definition of IPP, and its
associated notification mechanism, I am concerned primarily with client
/server communications. End user notification, while useful, is not my
primary objective. It is true that infrastructure will have to be
configured to allow this traffic to pass. The same is true of outbound IPP
requests. I imagine that most of our printers will also implement mailto. I
have no objections to allowing both, but I think only one should be
mandated.
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl-Uno Manros [mailto:carl@manros.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 10:44 AM
To: Zehler, Peter; henrik.holst@i-data.com; ipp@pwg.org;
peter.ultved@i-data.com
Subject: RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
Peter,
As we all know, votes in IPP meetings can only be seen as recommendations to
the group.
We need to get the hopefully final draft version of the INDP method out, and
then finally decide the matter on the IPP mailing list.
Carl-Uno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Zehler,
> Peter
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 5:25 AM
> To: henrik.holst@i-data.com; ipp@pwg.org; peter.ultved@i-data.com
> Subject: RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
>
>
> Henrik,
>
> From the May PWG/IPP meeting minutes:
> "4.6 Mandatory Notification Method?
>
> After further discussion about a possible mandatory notification
>
> method, the group agreed that the INDP Notification method should
>
> become mandatory."
>
> As for going through firewalls, the Bake-Off (hopefully) will test that
> specifically. Firewalls can be configured to allow specific traffic to
> pass. Some filter only on a port number and others examine content. I
> intend to have two firewall vendors at the Bake-Off with products that are
> able to filter at least on the port number. I hope at least one will also
> be able to examine the MIME type.
>
> 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
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: henrik.holst@i-data.com [mailto:henrik.holst@i-data.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 3:53 AM
> To: ipp@pwg.org; peter.ultved@i-data.com
> 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 - 11:24:56 EDT