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.
>>> "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?
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
> | 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
after the Printer has been created (the "printer-name" is used as an
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
set many of the other printer attributes.
I don't think this is a unique situation.