IPP> OPS - Issues/suggested resolutions to IPP Additional Adm in Operat ions

IPP> OPS - Issues/suggested resolutions to IPP Additional Adm in Operat ions

IPP> OPS - Issues/suggested resolutions to IPP Additional Adm in Operat ions

kugler at us.ibm.com kugler at us.ibm.com
Tue Jul 27 15:18:42 EDT 1999


 <3fee3089984dd211abcc00a0c9d346d08b6d2- at postoffice.netsilicon.com>
wrote: 
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/ipp/?start=6049
> A point of confusion remains as to whether the newly proposed
administrative
> functions apply to the IPP logical printer (the print object
identified in
> the IPP specifications), or to the physical printer device. There is
nothing
> in the charter having to do with physical device management. Or,
perhaps I
> have missed an unpublished charter under which the group is now
operating? I
> have been assuming that any IPP reference to  printer was to the IPP
Printer
> Object. Operations like "pause printer" can be assumed to apply to a
logical
> printer. However, it seems something of a stretch to consider
operations
> such as shutting down power on a logical printer. It certainly
appears that
> others are thinking of the operations as being performed on the
physical
> device in some, if not all cases. 

I think your basic premise here is flawed.  An IPP Printer is not
necessarily a "logical" printer.  The Model says (and has for a long
time) that:

"Since a Printer object is an abstraction of a generic document output
device and print service provider, a Printer object could be used to
represent any real or virtual device with semantics consistent with the
Printer object...

"The Printer objects may be embedded in an output device or may be
implemented on a host on the network that communicates with an output
device...

"An IPP Printer object encapsulates the functions normally associated
with physical output devices along with the spooling, scheduling and
multiple device management functions often associated with a print
server... 

"A Printer object can represent either one or more physical output
devices or a logical device which "processes" jobs but never actually
uses a physical output device to put marks on paper.  

According to IPP specifications, a Printer object can represent, or be
embedded in, a real, physical output device.  

    -Carl

> 
> Tom contends that "it is natural" that IPP do printer [device]
management. I
> see nothing natural about it; IPP does what the group specifies that
it
> does.  If the group decides that IPP should do device management,
then this
> should be stated (and bounded) in a PWG  or IETF charter. And it must
be
> clearly stated whether an operation applies to the IPP Printer object
or to
> the physical printer. But this intent should not be left up to the
> interpretation of the reader.
> 
> Indeed, I now wonder if Printer Attributes in general refer to the
logical
> or physical printer; if a printer can do 4-up printing in PostScript
but
> does not recognize this as a Job Template attribute, is number-up
printing a
> supported attribute? If it is an attribute of the logical printer,
why does
> the spec maintain that it may be document-format (printer language)
> dependent? 
> 
> William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
> Director, OEM Technology
>  DPI Imaging Division
>  NETsilicon Inc.
>  411 Waverley Oaks Road, #227
>  Waltham, MA 02452
>  Telephone 781-398-4588
> 
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 1999 8:49 PM
> To: ipp
> Subject: IPP> OPS - Issues/suggested resolutions to IPP Additional
Admin
> Operat ions
> 
> 
> Title:    Issues in IPP/1.0 & 1.1 Additional Administrative
Operations,
> 7/19/1999
> From:     Tom Hastings
> Date:     7/26/1999
> File:     ipp-ops-admin-issues-990726-th.doc
> 
> I've added Carl's and my suggested resolutions to all of these issues,
> preceded by CK> or TH>, respectively.  The dates indicate a mail
message on
> the subject.
> 
> Here are the collected issues that are embedded in the "IPP/1.0 & 1.1
> Additional Administrative Operations, 7/19/1999, that was posted at:
> 
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/proposed-registrations/operations/ipp-o
ps-admi
> n-990719.doc
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/proposed-registrations/operations/ipp-o
ps-admi
> n-990719.pdf
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/proposed-registrations/operations/ipp-o
ps-admi
> n-990719-rev.doc
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/proposed-registrations/operations/ipp-o
ps-admi
> n-990719-rev.pdf
> 
> ISSUE 1: Can a client determine the values of "when" that are
supported
> for operations (Pause-Printer, Reset-Printer, Shutdown-Printer, and
> Pause-Current-Job)?
> 
> TH> Just add a "when-values-supported" that applies to all of the four
> operations supported, with the exception of Pause-Current-Job.  For
> Pause-Current-Job, only the 'now' and 'after-current-copy' have any
> meaning, so the other two values ('after-current-job' and 'after-all')
> don't apply.
> 
> ISSUE 2:  Can we add just one Printer Description attribute:
"settable-
> attributes" or do we need a "printer-settable-attributes" and a "job-
> settable-attributes" Printer Description attributes?  What if the
> Interpreter and/or the Document object become real objects, would we
> need to add "interpreter-settable-attributes" and "document-settable-
> attributes" Printer Description attributes?
> 
> TH> Replace the "settable-attributes" Printer Description attribute,
> with three Printer Description attributes:  "printer-settable-
> attributes", "job-settable-attributes", and "interpreter-settable-
> attributes".  The latter for those implementations that have different
> values for Printer attributes in the Get-Printer-Attributes and Set-
> Printer-Attributes operations, depending on the value of the
"document-
> format" operation attribute supplied by the client.  If and when we
get
> a Document object, then we can add a "document-settable-attributes"
> Printer Description attribute.
> 
> ISSUE 3:  Ok that the "printer-controls-other-protocols" Printer
> Description attribute is just a boolean, or do we need a list of
> operations that affect non-IPP protocols?
> 
> TH> It would be more flexible to allow per-operation control, so
change
> from "printer-controls-other-protocols" Printer Description attribute
to
> "operations-affecting-other-protocols (1setOf type2 enum).  The values
> are defined by the "operations-supported (1setOf type2 enum)"
operation.
> 
> ISSUE 4:  Is IPP intended for printer management. The issue is still
> undetermined?
> 
> TH> I think it is natural and so far there is not much overlap with
any
> MIB.  If and when we do get overlap, we need to make sure that the
> semantics are the same.
> 
> ISSUE 5:  Do we need a way to get and/or set the "xxx" attribute for
all
> Interpreter objects in one Get-Printer-Attributes or Set-Printer-
> Attributes operation?  Or is it sufficient for a client to provide the
> equivalent functionality by stepping through all the values of the
> "document-formats-supported" with repeating the Get or Set operation?
> 
> TH> Its sufficient for the client to perform the "all" function.
> 
> ISSUE 6:  Ok to add the Interpreter object, even though it doesn't
solve
> all of the attribute constraint problems.  At least it gives us a more
> object-based description of the semantics.  When we do add some sort
of
> Printer Description attribute that enumerates combinations of Job
> attribute values that may not be used in combination (like PPD file
> constraints), it can include the "document-format" attribute among
them.
> So introducing the Interpreter object in no way precludes a complete
> constraint description mechanism in the future.
> 
> TH> Yes, its good modeling and doesn't change the IPP/1.0 and IPP/1.1
> syntax or semantics.
> 
> ISSUE 7:  Why not have a separate out-of-band 'not-settable' value, so
> that the client can distinguish between the cases of the attribute
isn't
> supported versus the attribute is supported, but is not settable? 
True,
> the client can query the "settable-attributes" to see which attributes
> can be set, before or after issuing the Set-Printer-Attributes
> operation.
> 
> TH> I think that providing a separate out-of-band code is useful,
since
> a reply could contain both unsupported attributes and ones that were
> supported, but are not settable in this implementation.
> 
> ISSUE 8:  Is the "non-process-run-out" operation attribute really
needed
> at all or can the default behavior for Reset-Printer be defined to be
to
> perform non-process run out (for continuous and cut sheet printers)?
> 
> CK 7/19/99: Remove the concept of non-process-run-out from all
> operations, but add a new operation that performs non-process run-out.
> This operation will be useful for web printers.  Call this operation:
> Run-Out-Printer?
> 
> ISSUE 9:   What state does the Printer comes back up on
Restart-Printer
> and how can the client control?
> Possible alternatives:
> 
>      a. Restart-Printer always brings the Printer up Disabled
("printer-
>      is-accepting-jobs" = 'false') and Paused ("printer-state" =
>      'stopped', and "printer-state-reasons" = 'paused') which is the
>      state that Shutdown-Printer leaves the Printer in.  Then the
>      operator issues Enable-Printer and Resume-Printer when want to
>      restore normal operation.  The client can automatically issues
>      these addition 2 operations depending on GUI options. 
Advantages:
>      This is the simplest to implement, allows new states to be added
>      without changing the Restart-Printer operation, and can have the
>      same GUI interface as b:
> 
>      b. Add a REQUIRED operation attribute to Restart-Printer,
something
>      like "printer-condition" with values: 'disabled-and-paused',
>      'enabled-and-paused', and 'enabled-and-idle'.
> 
> TH 7/26: Remove the Shutdown-Printer 'standby' mode concept. 
Shutdown-
> Printer always powers off eventually.  Also remove Restart-Printer
> operation all together.  Instead change the Disable-Printer and
Enable-
> Printer operations to Disable-Operations and Enable-Operations, so
that
> individual operations are enabled and disabled independent of the
state
> of the Printer and don't otherwise affect the state of the Printer.
> 
> ISSUE 10:  Is the "non-process-run-out" operation attribute really
> needed at all or can the default behavior for Restart-Printer be
defined
> to be to perform non-process run out (for continuous and cut sheet
> printers)?
> 
> CK 7/19/99: Remove the concept of non-process-run-out from all
> operations, but add a new operation that performs non-process run-out.
> This operation will be useful for web printers.  Call this operation:
> Run-Out-Printer?
> 
> ISSUE 11 - Need to look at life cycle of the Printer versus
> standby/power-down and the other operations that can be accepted. 
There
> can be appreciable time between acceptance of this operation and when
> the final state of the printer, either standby or powered down is
> reached.  Is it ok for non-submission operations to continue to be
> accepted during this time?  May need 'moving-to-shutdown'.  What about
> 'moving-to-standby'?
> 
> TH>  Add 'moving-to-shutdown' which the Shutdown-Printer sets
> immediately (analogous to 'moving-to-paused').  Then the 'shutdown'
> values means that the shutdown has completed (and is only meaningful
to
> a server implementation that hosts the Printer object).  Thus the
server
> can still respond to a Get-Printer-Attributes operation after the
> Printer is shutdown as stated in IPP/1.1.
> 
> ISSUE 12:  Is the "non-process-run-out" operation attribute really
> needed at all or can the default behavior for Shutdown-Printer be
> defined to be to perform non-process run out (for continuous and cut
> sheet printers)?
> 
> CK 7/19/99: Remove the concept of non-process-run-out from all
> operations, but add a new operation that performs non-process run-out.
> This operation will be useful for web printers.  Call this operation:
> Run-Out-Printer?
> 
> ISSUE 13:  It isn't clear which type of checkpointing is being
suggested
> for synchronize: checkpoint a stream or checkpoint in a job that is
on a
> disk file in the printer.
> 
> CK 7/19/99:  Suggest that it means checkpoint the job to disk, such
that
> processing can be resumed in the future.  Get all the counters and
> whatever from the output device and save that information persistently
> so that the job might be resumed in the future.
> 
> ISSUE 14:  Do we really need the "synchronize" operation attribute for
> the Shutdown-Printer operation or can synchronization be the default
> behavior of the Shutdown-Printer operation?   It is not clear why this
> would ever be false?  If it never makes sense to be 'false', can we
> remove it altogether?
> 
> CK 7/19/99:  "synchronize" is set to false in exceptional conditions;
> like when a previous attempt to shutdown with "synchronize" 'true'
hung
> (should never happen but apparently it does sometimes).  This could be
> automated with some kind of timeout mechanism, but we chose to give
the
> operator direct control.
> 
> So change the default behavior from 'false' to 'true' when the client
> omits the "synchronize" operation attribute.
> 
> ISSUE 15:  Is the current job automatically restarted when the Printer
> is restarted?  Or does some client have to issue a Restart-Job
> operation?
> 
> The question is moot, if we remove the Restart-Job operation, as
> suggested:
> 
> TH 7/26: Remove the Shutdown-Printer 'standby' mode concept. 
Shutdown-
> Printer always powers off eventually.  Also remove Restart-Printer
> operation all together.  Instead change the Disable-Printer and
Enable-
> Printer operations to Disable-Operations and Enable-Operations, so
that
> individual operations are enabled and disabled independent of the
state
> of the Printer and don't otherwise affect the state of the Printer.
> 
> ISSUE 16:  Why isn't non-process-run-out automatic on a continuous
form
> printer?  When would an operator want to cancel the job and NOT run
out
> the last sheets.?  It would be simpler to require process-run-out when
> canceling the current job (for continuous and cut sheet printers).
> 
> CK 7/19/99: Remove the concept of non-process-run-out from all
> operations, but add a new operation that performs non-process run-out.
> This operation will be useful for web printers.  Call this operation:
> Run-Out-Printer?
> 
> ISSUE 17:  Is the "non-process-run-out" operation attribute really
> needed at all or can the default behavior for Pause-Current-Job be
> defined to be to perform non-process run out (for continuous and cut
> sheet printers)?
> 
> CK 7/19/99: Remove the concept of non-process-run-out from all
> operations, but add a new operation that performs non-process run-out.
> This operation will be useful for web printers.  Call this operation:
> Run-Out-Printer?
> 
> ISSUE 18:  Do we really need the "synchronize" operation attribute or
> can synchronization be the default behavior of the Pause-Current-Job
> operation?
> 
> CK 7/19/99:  "synchronize" is set to false in exceptional conditions;
> like when a previous attempt to shutdown with "synchronize" 'true'
hung
> (should never happen but apparently it does sometimes).  This could be
> automated with some kind of timeout mechanism, but we chose to give
the
> operator direct control.
> 
> So change the default behavior from 'false' to 'true' when the client
> omits the "synchronize" operation attribute.
> 
> ISSUE 19:  Is the Space-Current-Job reasonable to perform when the
> current job is in the 'processing' state when paper is still moving?
> 
> CK 7/20/99: We can do Space-Current-Job while the printer is stopped,
> paused, or running.




More information about the Ipp mailing list