Bob,
> From: pmoore@peerless.com [mailto:pmoore@peerless.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 2:55 PM
>
> First - we all agreed not to do it. This seems like a good reason not to do
> it.
>
> [rgh reply]
> I concur that at the last meeting we did agree not to have a Machine
> Consumable format in 'mailto'. However, earlier this year we were going in
> the opposite direction and tried to get a Machine Consumable format to work
> in 'mailto'. We seemed to give up because the solutions were too complex.
>
> When I discovered this simple solution, I thought it would be good to find
> out if PWG member are opposed to a Machine Consumable format regardless of
> the solution or are opposed only to complex solutions.
With all due respect, might I suggest you go back and read the *rest* of
Paul Moore's response and address the many other concerns he so clearly
stated. (I've attached Paul's msg for your convenience.)
IMHO, Paul asks the best question of all:
> Again I ask what the purpose is? Is the idea to enrich the end user experience
> or is it an attempt to overcome the 'INDP wont go through a firewall' issue.
Why do you feel we need machine-readable components in an email msg?
I know for a fact that I am not alone in being totally confused about
the real-world requirements for dynamic/binary data vs. simple textual
email for printing notifications. Why would anyone would *demand* relatively
real-time notifications for print jobs outside of a firewall, anyway?
(God only knows such a person would never PAY for software that does this,
right? ;-)
...jay
attached mail follows:
First - we all agreed not to do it. This seems like a good reason not to do it.
Second, what is the point of machine-readable email? To whom did it get sent?
There is some mention of a browser plug-in - I along with many people - dont use
a browser to read my mail. Presumably the 'plug in' would read the email ver my
shoulder and then proceed to tell me what the human readable portion of the
mail told me anyway. So now I get the same message twice. Whats the point? I
have to install software on every client - the only purpose of which is to
repeat a message
If the email gets sent to some other mail box - how does this get set up? In
general I cannot just (as a client) invent a new mailbox name - that is the
whole point about stire and forward mail systems.
Again I ask what the purpose is? Is the idea to enrich the end user experience
or is it an attempt to overcome the 'INDP wont go through a firewall' issue.
I agree that in many cases INDP wont go through a firewall - but I dont see that
as an issue in real life. I send a job to Kinkos (or wherever), they send it to
one of their printers, the real printer tells the Kinko print system when it has
finished (possibly via INDP), the Kinkos print system sends me a piece of email
telling me that it has finished. I dont see any piece missing from this
solution.
But what the heck, lets make it a little more complex. Plus make sure we
distribute the flame-proof underwear to users who end up asking for page
notifications via email.
"Herriot, Robert" <Robert.Herriot@pahv.xerox.com> on 08/14/2000 02:20:20 PM
To: "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>, IETF-IPP <ipp@pwg.org>
cc: (bcc: Paul Moore/AUCO/US)
Subject: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - The IPP
Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)
At the recent IETF meeting Ned Freed (our AD) asked whether we could send
machine readable information with the "mailto" Delivery Method. He
suggested that "mulipart/report" could be used to send machine readable
information, and he left it to the IPP WG to decide whether such a feature
should be added. I then worked out a very simple design using Ned's ideas.
A use scanario is a browser with a plug-in which uses IMAP or POP3 to get
and display email that represents Printer Event Notifications (the plug-in
uses the Content-Type to separate the email).
So I am asking the IPP WG two questions (please respond to the DL):
1) Should we augment the "mailto" Delivery Method so that it can send
Machine Consumable information. That is, does it add value?
2) If so, is the proposed solution acceptable?
Before answering these qustions, please read a quick summary of the solution
below. The solution is very simple. The text in the spec leverages existing
features and I expect the code would too. The URLs of the changed document
are at the end of this discussion.
---------------------------------------
A new Subscription Template attribute "notify-mailto-report (boolean)" is
added.
When its value is 'false' the Printer behaves as it did before this
attribute was defined.
When its value is 'true', the Printer sends a message body whose
Content-Type is 'multipart/report'. According to the definition or
'multipart/report'(RFC 1892), the first body part of the 'multipart/report'
contains the Human Consumable information and the second body part contains
the Machine Consumable body part. So, the first body part contains whatever
the entire message body would contain if the value of the
""notify-mailto-report" were false. The second body part contains the
message body of a Send-Notifications request for the indp Delivery Method.
The Content-Type contains two parameters: the RFC specified parameter
"report-type=application/ipp", and a new parameter
"report-content=ipp-notify". A browser plug-in can search for the latter
parameter.
A Printer MUST support the "notify-mailto-report" attribute and the default
is "false". Thus there is no need for "notify-mailto-report-default" and
"notify-mailto-report-supported" attributes. Furthermore the code to support
this feature is a trivial combination of the indp and Human Consumable
mailto code.
Below is an example taken from the spec:
------------------------
When the Printer jams, the Printer generates and sends the following email
message.
The Machine Consumable body part below is represented in a symbolic manner
with the following characteristics:
a) Fields that specify length of the following attribute name or value are
not shown
b) Other binary data is enclosed in angle brackets with the symbolic name or
2 hex-digits per octet.
c) Commas separate fields when an angle bracket is not present to delimit
fields.
d) The '<>' mean empty octet-string
e) Comments occur between the ';' and the end of the line.
Date: 29 Aug 00 0832 PDT
From: tiger <printAdmin@abc.com>
Subject: printer: 'tiger' has stopped
To: pwilliams@abc.com
Content-type: multipart/report;
boundary="simpleBoundary",
report-type=application/ipp,
report-content=ipp-notify
--simpleBoundary
Content-Type: text/plain
Printer tiger has stopped with a paper jam.
--simpleBoundary
Content-Type: application/ipp
<0101> ; Version 1.1
<001D> ; operation Send-Notifications
<00000000> ; request-id
<operation-attributes> ; tag for operations attributes
; the 2 lines below contain a syntax type,
; an attribute name and an attribute value
<charset>attributes-charset,us-ascii
<natural-language>attributes-natural-language,en-us
<event-notification> ; tag for Event-Notification Attributes Group
; each line below contains a syntax type,
; an attribute name and an attribute value
<integer>notify-subscription-id<123>
<uri>notify-printer-uri,tiger
<keyword>notify-subscribed-event,printer-stopped
<integer>printer-uptime<12345>
<integer>notify-sequence-number<48>
<charset>notify-charset,us-ascii
<natural-language>notify-subscribed-event,en-us
<octet-string>notify-subscribed-event<>
<text>notify-text,Printer tiger has stopped with a paper jam.
<enum>printer-state<stopped>
<keyword,printer-state-reasons,media-jam
<boolean>printer-is-accepting-jobs<true>
<end-of-attributes> ; end of attribute tag
--simpleBoundary
------------------------------------------------------
The full details are at
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_NOT/ipp-notify-mailto-000811-rev.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_NOT/ipp-notify-mailto-000811-rev.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_NOT/ipp-notify-mailto-000811.txt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 15:11:59 EDT