<199907270108.vaa0276- at appsrv1.sdsp.mc.xerox.com> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/ipp/?start=6042
> Hi Tom,
>> I think your two new operations are interesting ideas, but they really
> do collide (on further reflection) with security access control
policies.
> Who do they prevent from exercising the 'disabled' operations? (If
> the answer was everyone, including operators, then the new operations
> are useless.
Ira, I don't follow your logic here. Disable-Operations with
"operations" ('Print-Job', 'Create-Job', 'Print-URI', 'Validate-Job')
is equivalent to the old Disable-Printer operation, right? If so, then
the new operations are only useless if Disable-Printer was useless.
Similarly, only users (Operators or Admins) that would have been
authorized to Disable-Printer would be authorized to
Disable-Operations.
> If the answer is 'end-users', then they DEFINITELY
> collide with separate access control lists and role models which
> may prevail in the customer's installed network environment.)
There are really three roles: Job-Submitting End User, Operator, and
Administrator. These roles are not necessarily distinct. A user with
a private office printer might play all three roles.
>> And I don't agree that Shutdown has no relationship to 'power-save'
> mode. There are Xerox printers that support switching to 'power-save'
> mode by remote management command. I *could* agree to a new operation
> or two like 'PowerSavePrinter' and 'WarmUpPrinter'. Warming up a
> printing by remote management script (say at 8am every weekday) is
> a useful application.
>No disagreement here.
> Lastly, for what it's worth many network products support two
> levels of power saving - one that wakes up fast and one that
> takes (perhaps) several minutes to wake up. Several Xerox
> printers do so.
>> Cheers,
> - Ira McDonald
> High North Inc
> 906-494-2697/2434
>