IPP> Identifying jobs in requests

IPP> Identifying jobs in requests

IPP> Identifying jobs in requests

Carl-Uno Manros cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com
Thu Jul 17 20:56:48 EDT 1997

At 05:05 PM 7/17/97 PDT, Paul Moore wrote:
>Not the issue. I do not object to using URI as job identifiers - I
>object to not giving the job identifier in a job specifc request.
>To restate - when I do a canceljob operation I do not supply a job
>identifier - the target job is implicit in the transport endpoint - this
>ties us to a transport. 


it seems that a lot of this discussion has been people talking past each
other, including myself.  I fully support your proposal as stated above.

On the more general issue that seems to have started up this whole thread
of discussion, namely whether a server should be able to suppress certain
attributes due to security restrictions, we seem to mix up general model
issues with security issues.  My take on that problem is the following:

1)  Either the Printer is open (non-secure), in which case the server
should return all the information.

2) Or the Printer is limiting access through some security restrictions,
usually requiring authentication and authorization. In this case, 

a) the client is either accepted and gets all the information, 
b) or it does not pass the security check and does not get anything.  

In consequence, I suggest that there is no half-way house cases where the
server would return some, but not all of the information and we should
amend the model document to reflect this.

Carl-Uno Manros
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

More information about the Ipp mailing list