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
Thu Mar 20 09:47:17 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

Only because you have an assumed protocol solution!
---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 03/20/97 07:45
AM ---------------------------

        Robert.Herriot @ Eng.Sun.COM
        03/19/97 06:03 PM

To: Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM
Subject: Re: IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements

Even if we break up the job into two operations create-job and
send-rest-of-job, it is unlikely that the jam will occur between
these two operations. Instead it will occur in the midst of one
of them.  The scenario still needs a correction, regardless of
whether print is performed with one operation or more than one

Bob Herriot

> From rdebry at us.ibm.com Wed Mar 19 13:15:48 1997
> 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
02:09 > PM --------------------------- > >         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
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, > 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 > > >

More information about the Ipp mailing list