IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements

IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements

IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements

Roger K Debry rdebry at us.ibm.com
Wed Mar 19 09:17:17 EST 1997

Epilogue: Roger K deBry
Senior Techncial Staff Member
Architecture and Technology
IBM Printing Systems
email: rdebry at us.ibm.com
phone: 1-303-924-4080

---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 03/19/97 07:05
AM ---------------------------

        ipp-owner @ pwg.org
        03/19/97 06:16 AM

To: Robert.Herriot @ Eng.Sun.COM at internet
cc: ipp @ pwg.org at internet
Subject: Re: IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements

>page 20: section 8.8
> Shouldn't the response be labeled: "Print job rejected"  It is not the
>   case that the synchronous response would say "print job accepted - printing
>   failed".


RKD> I believe that there are cases where:
RKD>   - the printer accepts the job
RKD>   - the printer starts printing before
RKD      all of the print data is sent
RKD>   - and printing fails before the response
RKD>     to the print request flows
RKD>   - when the response flows, why not
RKD>     report accurately the state of affairs?

>page 37: section 8.14.
>  I think we agreed that the last request "Here is last part of the document to
>   print" and response would be deleted and replaced with words saying that
the job
>   resumed printing.

I struggled with this one because in the scenario the printer is not capable of
spooling.  I think this case simply indicates that an error occurred while there
was still data to be sent to this printer and once the problem was fixed,
resumed and more print data was sent.  The cases we discussed where
there was language like this were all chunking cases.This is not a chunking
case but rather a non-spooling printer case.  I think I should leave it as it

RKD> I agre with Don ... how can printing resume
RKD> is data does not continue to flow?

More information about the Ipp mailing list