Harry,
I think that most people have thought that b) is "your" method. If it is
still not what you expect it to be, we need to discuss that further.
Carl-Uno
Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Xerox Architecture Center - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com
-----Original Message-----
From: harryl@us.ibm.com [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 8:26 AM
To: Carl-Uno Manros
Cc: kugler@us.ibm.com; cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com; HPARRA@novell.com;
ipp@pwg.org; Paul Moore; Herriot, Robert
Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery method
by July 7
I constantly have failed to get my point across... especially if you think
d) Multiple responses to an IPP operation is the same as b) Intelligent
polling!!! Rules... what rules?! None of the proposed solutions appear to
allow the simple notification of job complete on a real time basis to the
job submitter without stressing the infrastructure or imposing additional
protocol support.
If by b), you are referring to the "ipp-notify-get" methodology, it
appears to be the closest thing to "native" IPP but it deposits the
heuristics in the wrong end of the transaction (the client must still
decide/guess when to poll). It makes much more sense for the
server/printer to control the glide path to real-time notifications.
Still, if this is what you mean (b = "ipp-notify-get" delivery method)...
it may be the closest thing we have to a simple, native protocol for
events.
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
"Carl-Uno Manros" <carl@manros.com>
06/29/2000 08:43 AM
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "Hugo Parra"
<HPARRA@novell.com>
cc: <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>, <ipp@pwg.org>, "Paul Moore"
<pmoore@peerless.com>, Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification
delivery method by July 7
Harry,
No, no, we can't keeep changing the rules or we will not get anything out
of
this.
Also your suggested alternative d) is the same as b), we only have 4
alternatives.
Carl-Uno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: harryl@us.ibm.com [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 6:12 AM
> To: Hugo Parra
> Cc: carl@manros.com; cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com; ipp@pwg.org; Paul Moore;
> kugler@us.ibm.com
> Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery method
> by July 7
>
>
>
>
>
> I would amend Hugo's questions... and request that the options be as
> follows:
>
> a) over email
> b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> direction)
> d) "Native" IPP notifications (new - augment IPP to allow multiple
> responses to any operation)
> e) over SNMP
> f) don't mandate any
>
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
>
>
>
>
> "Hugo Parra" <HPARRA@novell.com>
> Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
> 06/28/2000 08:15 PM
>
>
> To: <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>, <carl@manros.com>,
> <pmoore@peerless.com>
> cc: <ipp@pwg.org>
> Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification
> delivery method by July 7
>
>
> Shouldn't the options be ...
>
> a) over email
> b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> direction)
> d) over SNMP
> e) don't mandate any
>
> Otherwise those who give each entry a weight of zero, basically through
> away their vote.
>
> -Hugo
>
> >>> "Carl-Uno Manros" <carl@manros.com> 06/28/00 07:52PM >>>
> Oh no, I managed to not be completely clear after all.
>
> The weighting is for the IETF standards texts.
>
> What gets tested in the bake-off is the decision of the PWG, which hosts
> the
> bake-off event, and has nothing to do with this exercise.
>
> Carl-Uno
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of
> > pmoore@peerless.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 5:47 PM
> > To: Manros, Carl-Uno B
> > Cc: IETF-IPP
> > Subject: Re: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery
method
> > by July 7
> >
> >
> > If this is a vote for making things mandatory :-
> >
> > 0 a) over email
> > 0 b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> > 0 c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> > direction)
> > 0 d) over SNMP
> >
> > I dont think mandating is useful
> >
> > If this is a vote for 'what specs do we need to agree and bakeoff
ASAP'
> >
> > 2 a) over email
> > 0 b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> > 2 c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> > direction)
> > 0 d) over SNMP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com> on 06/28/2000
05:17:16
> PM
> >
> > To: IETF-IPP <ipp@pwg.org>
> > cc: (bcc: Paul Moore/AUCO/US)
> >
> > Subject: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery
> > method by July 7
> >
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > The IETF does not do voting, but we can ask people to allocate weights
> to
> > their favorite method. From the result I hope to get a picture of
> > whether we
> > have a clear "rough consensus" favorite, or if we should just avoid
> trying
> > to make any particular notification delivery method the "required" or
> > "mandated" one.
> >
> > So let the weightings begin!
> >
> > Here are the rules:
> >
> > 1) We have 4 candidate notification delivery methods, briefly
> > described as:
> >
> > a) over email
> > b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> > c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> direction)
> > d) over SNMP
> >
> > 2) You have a total of maximum 4 weight points to allocate between the
4
> > methods above.
> >
> > a) You can put all your 4 points on one favorite and leave the
> > other three
> > with 0 each. (the 'all eggs in one basket' option)
> > b) If you don't really mind which method, you can give 1 point to
each
> of
> > the methods. (the 'chicken' option)
> > c) You can allocate your 4 points somewhere between the two extreme
> cases
> > above. (the 'diplomatic' options)
> > d) If you don't want to make ANY of the methods "required" or
> "mandated",
> > put a 0 for ALL four methods! (the 'don't even try it' option)
> >
> > If you still haven't understood the rules, please read the above
> > text 3 more
> > times, before you make a fool of yourself....., or of me for not
> > being clear
> > enough ;-{
> >
> > So please collect your wits and send your weights to the IPP DL no
later
> > than next Friday July 7!
> >
> > Have fun.... and remember that if you do not participate you cannot
win!
> >
> > Carl-Uno
> >
> > Carl-Uno Manros
> > Principal Engineer - Xerox Architecture Center - Xerox Corporation
> > 701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
> > Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
> > Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 12:12:13 EDT