Bob,
I forgot about what we said for a Printer Description attribute that is NOT
defined to be READ-ONLY, but an implementation only supports one value. For
example, a simplex printer only supports the 'one-sided' value for
"sides-supported". I'm looking through the Set spec, but can't find it.
Did we agree that the implementation could let the "sides-supported" be
settable, but only to that one value, or the implementation could support
"sides-supported" as not-settable, depending on implementation, correct?
Then maybe my statement about "persistent-jobs-supported" isn't quite
correct either:
If the Printer supports this attribute as settable, then its value MUST
control whether or not the Printer keeps Jobs persistently as per the rules
in [ipp-set]).
How about if I change it to something like:
As with any settable attribute, if the Printer supports setting this
attribute to more than one value, then the value being set MUST control
whether or not the Printer keeps Jobs persistently as per the rules in
[ipp-set]). As with any settable attribute, if the Printer only supports
one value, it MAY support this attribute either (1) as settable to that one
value, or as not-settable, depending on implementation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 18:30
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: ipp
Subject: RE: IPP> NOT - Few minor remaining issues in IPP Notification
Spe c
Ira,
Thanks for replying.
See my comments preceded by TH>
Maybe we can resolve all of these issues quickly!
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 15:09
To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; ipp
Subject: RE: IPP> NOT - Few minor remaining issues in IPP Notification
Spe c
Hi Tom,
My comments are below, prefixed by '> (ira)'.
Cheers,
- Ira
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 2:48 PM
To: ipp
Subject: IPP> NOT - Few minor remaining issues in IPP Notification Spec
Importance: High
I'm just about ready to publish the Notification Spec again, and have found
the following issues. If we could resolve them (except Issue 02) on the
mailing list and discuss at tomorrow's IPP telecon, I can update before
making the Internet-Draft that we want to send out for IPP WG Last Call:
ISSUE 01 - Ok to include the notification delivery scheme names 'ipp:',
'indp:', 'mailto:', and 'snmp:' that are in progress as example values of
the "notify-recipient" (uri) attribute?
> (ira)
> As Ron Bergman pointed out, 'snmpnotify:' (or 'snmpnot:') must be used
> because 'snmp:' would name an SNMP Agent endpoint (command receiver
> and notification generator) rather than an SNMP Manager endpoint
> (command generator and notification receiver).
TH> Does that mean we have to register the scheme as well?
I like snmpnotify, ok? When should we change your document?
ISSUE 02 - Once a number of delivery solutions have been developed and
evaluated, we may want to make one or several of them REQUIRED for
implementation to ensure a minimum set of interoperability. Which one or
ones should be REQUIRED?
> (ira)
> Only 'ipp:' (in-band back channel), because it doesn't require new
> protocols to be supported.
TH> What do others think? Maybe we can agree on this issue too.
ISSUE 03: OK to allow the "persistent-jobs-supported" (boolean) Printer
Description attribute to be settable?
> (ira)
> Maybe - what if the implementation CAN'T support persistent jobs.
TH> If it can't support persistent jobs, the value is 'false' and isn't
settable.
ISSUE 04: OK to allow the "persistent-subscriptions-supported" (boolean)
Printer Description attribute to be settable?
> (ira)
> Maybe - what if the implementation CAN'T support persistent subscriptions.
TH> If it can't support persistent jobs, the value is 'false' and isn't
settable.
ISSUE 05 - Can an implementation extend the Notification Content to include
an attribute that uses the 'collection' attribute syntax? If so, should we
REQUIRE that Notification Recipients that can accept Machine Consumable
Notifications, be able to accept the 'collection' attribute syntax?
> (ira)
> SNMP notifications are machine consumable (they're certainly not human
> readable) and they CAN'T convey 'collection' attribute syntax.
TH> I agree with your assertions about SNMP. But what about some other
delivery method, such as 'indp:' or 'mailto:'? Is it ok for a Notification
Sender to include a collection attribute as an extension? If so, does that
answer depend on our having a way in the encoding not to confuse IPP/1.1
recipients that don't know about 'collection' attribute syntax?
ISSUE 06: Ok that "notify-charset" and "notify-natural-language" member
attributes don't follow the "xxx-supported" rule for collection member
attributes, since the "xxx-supported" attributes are "charset-supported" and
"generated-natural-language-supported", respectively, instead of
"notify-charset-supported" and "notify-natural-language-supported"?
> (ira)
> OK by me - I would NOT like to see different 'notify-xxx-supported'
> than 'xxx-supported' for 'charset' and 'natural-language'.
TH> So its ok that the "notify-charset" and "notify-natural-language"
member attributes are validated against the existing Printer's
"charset-supported" and
"generated-natural-language-supported", respectively? There are no
"notify-charset-supported" and "notify-natural-language-supported" Printer
attributes defined.
Thanks,
Tom