[IDS] Question regarding PWG 5110.3-2013 - PWG Common Log Format

[IDS] Question regarding PWG 5110.3-2013 - PWG Common Log Format

[IDS] Question regarding PWG 5110.3-2013 - PWG Common Log Format

Rizzo, Christopher Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com
Wed Apr 29 17:28:20 UTC 2015


Michael,

Thank you for the responses.  All look ok.

Something I just noticed however is that I believe the examples (which
should follow RFC5424 format) are incorrect.  For example:

1. They do not contain all the specified fields.
2. The PRI field is supposed to be surrounded by angle brackets, with
VERSION after PRI with no intervening spaces.
3. There may be other issues with the examples, I have not studied them in
greater detail.

Sorry for not pointing this out sooner...  Not sure how much this matters,
but the examples in the spec cause a bit of confusion.

Thanks,
Chris

Christopher Rizzo
Xerox Corporation MS 7060-368
26600 SW Parkway Ave.
Wilsonville, OR 97070
Phone: (503) 582-7577
Intelnet: 8*872-7577
Cube: 7060-Z22-C
Email: Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com




On 4/14/15, 1:52 PM, "Michael Sweet" <msweet at apple.com> wrote:

>Chris,
>
>Thanks for the info, my comments are below...
>
>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Rizzo, Christopher
>><Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Michael,
>> 
>> Not sure if I should respond to you directly or how to access my
>>original question - is there a forum URL?
>
>The IDS WG mailing list is the proper forum.  You can also report spec
>issues at:
>
>    https://www.pwg.org/issues
>
>(you'll need to create an account on the web site to file new issues...)
>
>After reviewing this list an errata update to clarify the requirements
>might be in order, e.g., "Every job message MUST provide the applicable
>general parameters defined in section 5.1 and the applicable job
>parameters defined in section 5.3". (or something like that)
>
>I think it would also be useful to say that parameters can be omitted
>only if they were not specified and cannot be generated by the service -
>
>> Here is the list in the spec (the ones we can obviously do are labeled
>>ok)
>> 
>> Section 5.1:
>> DeviceUUID (DUU) - ok
>> Event (E) - ok
>> LogNaturalLanguage (NL) - ok
>> Status (S) - ok
>> <service>URI (URI) - ok
>> UserHost (UH) - ok
>> UserName (UN) - ok
>> UserRole (UR) - ok
>> UserURI (UU) - Where do we get this?  Job requests don't usually
>>include a User URI.
>
>You can get it from the authenticated user info, but this should be
>omitted otherwise I think.
>
>> Section 5.3:
>> JobID (JID) - ok
>> JobUUID (JUU) - ok
>> JobImagesCompleted (JIM) - ok
>> JobImpressionsCompleted (JIC) - ok
>> JobDestinationURI (JD) - For Fax jobs, this must be the destination
>>number(s), but for print jobs would this be the URI of the printer
>>object?
>
>Omit for Print jobs. Include for Scan jobs if push scanning is used.
>Always include for FaxOut jobs.
>
>(not sure what to say about FaxIn jobs, but there should be some
>accounting of where the incoming Fax job is routed...)
>
>> JobState (JS) - ok
>> JobStateReasons (JR) - ok
>> JobAccountingID (JA) - If accounting is not enabled, this does not
>>apply, include it but leave it blank?
>
>I think it is better to omit when it hasn't been specified. Might be
>provided/derived/defaulted from the authenticated user info as well.
>
>> JobAccountingUserName (JAUN)  - If accounting is not enabled, this does
>>not apply, include it but leave it blank?
>
>See above.
>
>> JobAccountingUserURI (JAUU) - If accounting is not enabled, this does
>>not apply, include it but leave it blank? Also, as for (UU) where does
>>the value come from?
>
>Either specified by the Client or derived from the authenticated user
>info.
>
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>> 
>> Christopher Rizzo
>> Xerox Corporation MS 7060-368
>> 26600 SW Parkway Ave.
>> Wilsonville, OR 97070
>> Phone: (503) 582-7577
>> Intelnet: 8*872-7577
>> Cube: 7060-Z22-C
>> Email: Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com
>> 
>> From: "msweet at apple.com" <msweet at apple.com>
>> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 8:52 AM
>> To: Christopher Rizzo <Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com>
>> Cc: IDS Work Group <ids at pwg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [IDS] Question regarding PWG 5110.3-2013 - PWG Common Log
>>Format
>> 
>> Chris,
>> 
>>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Rizzo, Christopher
>>><Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Per PWG 5110.3-2013 section 4.3 Job Message Format, "Every job message
>>>MUST provide the general parameters defined in section 5.1 and the job
>>>parameters defined in section 5.3".
>>> 
>>> Is this statement to be taken literally, meaning that for conformance
>>>ALL attributes in sections 5.1 and 5.3 MUST be in the log, even if for
>>>some events they do not apply?
>> 
>> Do you have an example of parameters that are not applicable for a
>>particular event?
>> 
>> _________________________________________________________
>> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>> 
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>



More information about the ids mailing list