IPP> MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations registration pr

IPP> MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations registration pr

IPP> MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations registration pr

PETER_E_MELLQUIST at hp-roseville-om3.om.hp.com PETER_E_MELLQUIST at hp-roseville-om3.om.hp.com
Wed Jun 23 22:19:23 EDT 1999


IPP is not a management / Administrative Protocol. If you want management, then 
use a management protocol. Just because you can do something within IPP does 
not mean you should.

"Before we drop this issue, I'm with Tom in that from time to time 
administrators find it very useful to be able to rename a printer."

Peter Mellquist
Hewlett-Packard Company
  
-----Original Message-----
From: Non-HP-HPARRA /HP-Roseville,mimegw4/dd.HPMEXT1=HPARRA at novell.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 10:38 AM
To: Non-HP-hastings 
/HP-Roseville,mimegw4/dd.HPMEXT1=hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com; Non-HP-ipp 
/HP-Roseville,mimegw4/dd.HPMEXT1=ipp at pwg.org; Non-HP-kugler 
/HP-Roseville,mimegw4/dd.HPMEXT1=kugler at us.ibm.com
Cc: Non-HP-HPARRA /HP-Roseville,mimegw4/dd.HPMEXT1=HPARRA at novell.com
Subject: RE: IPP> MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations 
registration pr

Before we drop this issue, I'm with Tom in that from time to time 
administrators find it very useful to be able to rename a printer.  Our 
utilities give them all kinds of warnings as to the possible ramifications of 
doing so and then let them choose whether or not to carry on with the change.  
If it's just a whim, they usually back off, but sometimes they must do the 
change for important reasons such as, the company just adopted a new naming 
convention, they're merging two or more Organizational Units and must eliminate 
duplicate names, they're trying to integrate/gateway to a system that doesn't 
support characters in their current names, etc.  My vote is that rename be 
allowed.

-Hugo

>>> "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com> 06/23/99 11:00AM >>>
So should we change this from a MUST to a SHOULD or a MAY?

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: kugler at us.ibm.com [mailto:kugler at us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 15:29
To: ipp at pwg.org 
Cc: hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com 
Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations
registration pr





> +----------------------------+---+
> | printer-name               | S | MUST
> TH31>  Why not allow this to be set.  Its the administratively set name.
> +----------------------------+---+

I think we have to be careful about putting too many MUSTs on the
implementations.  In our case, we can't (practically) change the
"printer-name"
after the Printer has been created (the "printer-name" is used as an
identifier
by other, non-IPP, parts of the system).  If this becomes a MUST, then we're
faced with some unpleasant alternatives:

    1) Try to work around the problem; fake "printer-name" somehow
    2) Don't support the "printer-name" attribute (Oops! Its REQUIRED.)
    3) Don't support the Set-Printer-Attributes operation, even though we
could
set many of the other printer attributes.

I don't think this is a unique situation.

    -Carl

 << File: RE_ IPP_ MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations 
registration pr.TXT >> 


More information about the Ipp mailing list