[Cloud] Updated model and requirements for cloud printing

[Cloud] Updated model and requirements for cloud printing

[Cloud] Updated model and requirements for cloud printing

William A Wagner wamwagner at comcast.net
Tue Oct 2 05:05:01 UTC 2012


Hi Randy,

 

Interesting comments. You really should participate in the working group.

 

Sec 3.5, which still needs to be done, is in satisfaction of the PWG spec
structure that requires a statement of design requirements, presumably
derived from the use cases. One could argue that, since there are no use
cases, there can be no requirements derived from the use cases. That could
be extended to say there is no need for the design. in which case we are
done. In fact, we are taking some short cuts, largely prompted by comments
from you and others that seem plausible. Yet we also believe that interface
to the printer is not the same as for ordinary network printing. So perhaps
the requirements may be limited to areas where we ( that being the working
group) expect the design requirements to differ from network printing.
Unfortunately, we never wrote a spec for Print Service, instead relying upon
the mass of IPP  documents. So there is no Semantic Model  print document
that can be referenced for the Client side requirements (which the group now
maintains is the same as for network printing).

 

Section 4 was an attempt to describe the model diagram. Terminology is in
section 2. A great deal of time was spent on the terminology section of  the
MFD model document, which was intended to cover all of the major actor
elements in the Semantic Model. Of course, we are always inclined to tweak
these definitions in a new document and often forget what the group had
decided previously. Also, there are some errors in the MFD Model
definitions, and there sometimes is new insight that suggests a change. But
the MFD Model document is supposed to contain the basic definitions.

 

Bill Wagner

 

From: cloud-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:cloud-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
Randy Turner
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:38 PM
To: <cloud at pwg.org>
Subject: Re: [Cloud] Updated model and requirements for cloud printing

 

 

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.pdf

 

 <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/wd-cloudmodel10-20121002.docx>
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  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
 <mailto:cloud at pwg.org> cloud at pwg.org
 <https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud>
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud

 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 


-- 
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/20121002/8be12147/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the cloud mailing list