While I respect Bob's, Ira's, Ted's (and other's) opinions the
conversation sure seems to have adopted an arbitrary tone w.r.t. to IPP
bells, whistles and trinkets. If someone says they can use a simple
feature like redirect I see no need to block it. If it were mind bending I
would argue otherwise... but redirect is quite simple by any gauge and
doesn't even register on the scale of numbness many feel when first
confronting IPP.
Notification redirect should consist of writing the client to accept a URL
(in place of the printer URL) where it should expect to find subsequent
notifications.
I can always feature the redirect... so I guess I'm going down for last
count w/o a big struggle. I don't think Bob is correct in attributing
lack of chatter as lack of significance. I think the spotlight is off IPP
and you are witnessing the polling interval.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Robert Herriot" <bob@herriot.com>
07/31/2002 03:05 AM
To: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "'Mike Sweet'"
<mike@easysw.com>, "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
cc: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com>, "Ted
Tronson" <TTRONSON@novell.com>, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>,
<ipp@pwg.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call comment to remove redirect URL and status code from IPPGET
Harry says that redirect is simple to implement. I agree, but
implementation
is only part of the issue.
Each feature requires documentation, testing and support. There is no such
thing as a free feature.
Very few people have responded to this issue and no one has said that it
is
a necessary feature.
So, it would seem hard to justify keeping a feature that.seems to have no
value to anyone, but does have a cost to every vendor.
Bob Herriot
----- Original Message -----
From: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
To: "'Mike Sweet'" <mike@easysw.com>; "Hastings, Tom N"
<hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
Cc: "Harry Lewis" <harryl@us.ibm.com>; <Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com>;
"Ted
Tronson" <TTRONSON@novell.com>; "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>;
"Robert Herriot" <bob@herriot.com>; <ipp@pwg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 8:46 PM
Subject: RE: Last Call comment to remove redirect URL and status code from
IPPGET
> Hi,
>
> If we keep it, remember it can be OPTIONAL to use but MUST be REQUIRED
> to support (for the Client - that is, IPP Clients MUST honor and use
> the redirect).
>
> Does everyone want a new REQUIRED to implement application redirect
> feature (for IPP Clients)?
>
> I doubt it very much. And that's the test that the IESG will apply,
> for interoperability.
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira McDonald
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Sweet [mailto:mike@easysw.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 9:09 PM
> To: Hastings, Tom N
> Cc: Harry Lewis; Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com; Ted Tronson; McDonald,
> Ira; Robert Herriot; ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call comment to remove redirect URL and status code
> from IPPGET
>
>
> Hastings, Tom N wrote:
> > ...
> > Could the six commenters (see the To: line) who agreed to remove
> > redirection, please respond as to whether they are still in favor of
> > deleting the Get-Notifications redirection or that they are now
> > willing to keep Get-Notifications redirection in the IPPGET spec in
> > case someone wants to implement IPPGET with a Notification Server.
>
> If we keep it, we probably do need a redirect timeout parameter, or
> to define what should happen if the redirect server doesn't handle the
> notification...
>
> > As Bob asks, is anyone planning to use a Notification Server or think
> > that they might want to?
>
> We're not planning to.
>
> --
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike@easysw.com
> Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 31 2002 - 23:10:27 EDT