Glen - correct me please if I'm all wet here...
On reflection, I think Glen's comment at the end of today's Cloud call about
delayed Design Requirements (in the individual IPP EW or MFD Svc specs),
was pointing out that our existing specs often have Design Requirements of
(a) Protocol <abc> must/should support an <xyz> operation...
(b) Protocol <abc> must/should support a <fgh> feature or property...
That is, the target protocol (IPP Everywhere, MFD SOAP, etc.) receives
I suggest that, nonetheless, Cloud Imaging Model and Requirements
needs to have both Cloud-specific Use Cases and their derived Design
Requirements (written for abstract operations and features/properties).
Which raises another question. Should the Cloud Imaging Model include
actual abstract operations (higher-level than current MFD Model spec)?
- These would get mapped to concrete operations in Cloud Print IPP
Binding and Cloud Print SOAP Binding.
I think the answer should be yes.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Christmas through April:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
May to Christmas:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
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...