if you guys cannot reach agreement on this, I suggest taking out the
scenario all together!
At 01:10 PM 3/19/97 PST, Roger K Debry wrote:
>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
>>That's not clear! It depends on what we finally end up with as the protocol.
>You've obviously assumed one approach (which might be the correct one, but
>since we haven't yet agreed, it is still an open issue.
>>---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 03/19/97
>> ipp-owner @ pwg.org
> 03/19/97 01:59 PM
>>>To: don @ lexmark.com at internet, Robert.Herriot @ Eng.Sun.COM at internet>cc: ipp @ pwg.org at internet>Subject: Re: IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements
>>The important point here is that we cannot have what looks like a response
>to a print operation and then send more data.
>>>> From don at lexmark.com Wed Mar 19 05:12:19 1997
>> >page 37: section 8.14.
>> > I think we agreed that the last request "Here is last part of the
>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
>to this printer and once the problem was fixed, > printing > 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 > stands. > >
> > Don >
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros at cp10.es.xerox.com