[Cloud] Updated model and requirements for cloud printing

[Cloud] Updated model and requirements for cloud printing

[Cloud] Updated model and requirements for cloud printing

Randy Turner rturner at amalfisystems.com
Tue Oct 2 01:37:48 UTC 2012


Hi guys,

some notes regarding the recently published cloud model document:

-------------
Sorry to be a broken record here, but isn't section 3.5 just a repeat of our desire to follow the semantic model with regards to printer operations?  Seems like a statement saying:

The following operations from the PWG semantic model [REF] are required for cloud printing

1.
2.
3.
etc.

>From an earlier email exchange between Mike and I, it seems like everything just "works the same" from the "client requirements" perspective.

--------------

Section 4.1  -  Are the terms "User" and "Client" defined this way in other PWG docs?  Probably should be.  We should have a separate document that defines terminology for all PWG docs, and put these in it (if we don't already)

If we already have these defined, then we should probably just reference them in 4.1

--------------

Section 4.2.1 - Sequence diagrams can either be "abstract" or "concrete protocol" diagrams.  I can't tell which this is.
With the reference to user credentials being one way (no challenge) and the labels "status, access token", it seems like this is somewhat suggestive of a concrete sequence diagram.  Abstract sequence diagrams are usually NOT normative; they're typically informative, so are we trying to "suggest" something with these diagrams?

---------------


R.







On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:04 PM, "larryupthegrove" <larryupthegrove at comcast.net> wrote:

> I made the updates and corrections from today’s meeting.
>  
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/wd-cloudmodel10-20121002.pdf
>  
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/wd-cloudmodel10-20121002.docx
>  
>  
> Items I would appreciate feedback and/or suggestions.
> 1.        Two additional sequence diagrams.
> a.       Config change – seems it should be very short, I was going to add short paragraph adding some descriptive text on covering both soft and hard (tray) changes.
> b.      Exception handling – could result in aborting the job, or updating client status and waiting.  Should I try to show both?
> 2.       Any updates to reference documents that should be included.
>  
> My cleanup effort on the Visio sequence drawings needs another pass to make it look better, as well as getting the figures into the table of contents.
>  
> Larry
>  
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and 
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
> believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> cloud at pwg.org
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud


-- 
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/cloud/attachments/20121001/fad0ff54/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the cloud mailing list