All,
Section 10.8.2 covering "original-requesting-user-name" is a bit
misleading. The issue is that the Job owner is not always the same as
the "requesting-user-name". When forwarding jobs from one printer to
another the "original-requesting-user-name" is the most authenticated
printable name that can be obtained. As stated in section 10.8.8 of
rfc3998: "The "job-originating-user-name" Job Description attribute
(see [RFC2911], section 4.3.6) remains as the authenticated original
user". This is inconsistent with section 10.8.2 as currently written.
Below is my proposed change to section 10.8.2.
Original:
10.8.2. original-requesting-user-name (name(MAX)) Operation and Job
Description Attribute
The operation attribute containing the user name of the original
user; i.e., corresponding to the "requesting-user-name" operation
attribute (see [RFC2911], section 3.2.1.1) that the original client
supplied to the first Printer object. The Printer copies the
"original-requesting-user-name" operation attribute to the
corresponding Job Description attribute.
Corrected:
10.8.2. original-requesting-user-name (name(MAX)) Operation and Job
Description Attribute
The operation attribute containing the user name of the original
user; i.e., corresponding to the "job-originating-user-name" Job
attribute (see [RFC2911], section 4.3.6) that identifies the Job
owner on the first Printer object. The Printer copies the
"original-requesting-user-name" operation attribute to the
corresponding Job Description attribute.
Peter Zehler
Xerox Research Center Webster
Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com <mailto:Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com>
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-7441
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-25E
Webster NY, 14580-9701
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20111116/859b815c/attachment-0001.html>