No subject

No subject

No subject

harryl at us.ibm.com harryl at us.ibm.com
Fri Aug 14 02:28:33 EDT 1998


>From ipp-owner at pwg.org Thu Aug 13 22:29:21 1998
From: Harry Lewis <harryl at us.ibm.com>
To: <ipp at pwg.org>
Cc: Steve Gebert <stevegeb at us.ibm.com>, Carl Kugler <kugler at us.ibm.com>,
        <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.coM>
Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - Questions on IPP
Message-ID: <5030100024532553000002L032*@MHS>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:19:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-ipp at pwg.org

Carl-Uno, here is my response to your questions...

1) Is it really necessary to keep the "Validate-Job" operation as a =
MUST to
implement? The "Get-Printer-Attributes" operation seems to provide all =
the
functionality that is needed.

HRL> Validate job is intended to pertain to more than just printer =
attributes.
It should also cover print job attributes (like n-up, for example). =
Isn't
Validate-Job akin to checking the "job ticket" whereas =
Get-Printer-Attributes
is akin to determining the device configuration?

2) Can you implement the operations "Create-Job", "Send-Document" and
"Send-URI", without the need to support multiple documents? This could =
be
useful for environments where you have long jobs, but do not need =
support
for multiple documents.

HRL> The model document supports the notion of a Create-Job operation =
followed
by only one Send-Document operation as semantically equivalent to a =
Print-Job
operation. It cautions regarding performance, however. If you are =
asking is it
ok to support Creat-Job, Send-Doc with only one document - Yes. If you =
are
asking is it ok to support Create-Job but LIMIT Send-Dco to only one
document... I'd say that would be a non-no!

3) What was the rationale for making the "printer-up-time" attribute a
REQUIRED attribute, considering that the other 3 attributes
"time-at-creation", "time-at-processing", and "time-at-completed", with
which it is associated, are all OPTIONAL?

HRL> Don't know for sure but I suspect this attempts to make a running =
"time
marker" available for monitoring, tracking accounting etc... without =
mandating
all the possible time recording points on each IPP device. This si =
somewhat
analogous to the sysUpTime concept in MIB-II.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems



More information about the Ipp mailing list