[IPP] RFC: Identify-Printer mini-extension

[IPP] RFC: Identify-Printer mini-extension

[IPP] RFC: Identify-Printer mini-extension

Ira McDonald blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Tue Dec 10 17:17:11 UTC 2013


Hi,

I was wrong.

I agree with Mike and Smith that it's a service-level operation.

I also agree with Mike that we should not add "identify duration"
at all.  The identity action should be brief (seconds, not minutes).
Otherwise, it becomes an annoyance for a shared workgroup
printer in the modern (barbarian) cubicles style of office.

Cheers,
 -  Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434



On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <
smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:

> I agree with Mike on this.  If I am a client and communicating with /
> using IPP Printers hosted on an IPP print server, I would want the
> Identify-Printer to map to the IPP Printer, which may or may not be
> implemented as a sub-system of the physical hardware of the print server
> (as represented by the System Control Service).
>
> From that cloud discussion the other day, and this topic, I really feel
> like we need to have pictures, so that people can discuss topics from
> unambiguous scenarios.  Trying to verbally describe the topology of a graph
> of edges and vertices can be awfully error prone.
>
> Smith
>
>
>
> On 2013-12-10, at 9:36 AM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>
> Ira,
>
> On Dec 10, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I agree with you - that's what I was realizing when I wrote my previous
> note.
> Identify-Xxx is a device-level operation.
>
>
> I disagree, Identify-Xxx is a service-level operation that causes the
> identification of any physical device(s) associated with that service.  We
> don't provide device interfaces, just service interfaces...
>
> BTW - what about conflicts between two different services that receive
> conflicting Identify-Xxx operations (or cancels)?
>
>
> AFAIK, coordination of subunits between services is implementation-defined
> behavior.  If one service is using the buzzer then another service has to
> wait (or error-out) to use it.
>
> IMHO, cancel should only apply to the identification done by that service,
> not to all services.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira
>
>
>
> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
> http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
> http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
> mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
> Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
> Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>wrote:
>
>> Ira,
>>
>> I suggest that what is being identified is the physical device, and that
>> the System Control Service is the proper recipient.
>>
>> Bill Wagner
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Ira
>> McDonald
>> *Sent:* Monday, December 09, 2013 5:37 PM
>> *To:* Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect)
>> *Cc:* <ipp at pwg.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [IPP] RFC: Identify-Printer mini-extension
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Smith,
>>
>> Tricky.  The "identify action duration" would be a new attribute (which
>> would require a revision of JPS3 spec - yuck).
>>
>> Mike's right that IPPSIX is the wrong place to do this - the conformance
>>
>> shouldn't have anything to do with IPPSIX.
>>
>> I also don't think that System Control Service should get into this
>> business
>>
>> - or maybe I'm crazy and that actually is the *right* place?  Should SCS,
>>
>> rather than an individual service, be the target of this device-level
>> operation?
>>
>> Someday, we need a lightweight IPP registration for whole new attributes
>>
>> (in an existing attribute group), I suspect.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> - Ira
>>
>>
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
>> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
>> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
>> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
>> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
>> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
>> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
>> http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
>> http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
>> mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
>> Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
>> Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <
>> smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
>>
>> IMHO, these look fine.  I wonder if the “identify action duration” needs
>> to be covered by something?  Does the System Control Service need to
>> concern itself with this domain?
>>
>> Smith
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2013-12-09, at 12:53 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> > All,
>> >
>> > During our last Cloud Imaging Model WG meeting, we discussed having the
>> ability to explicitly cancel a previous Identify-Printer operation.  The
>> consensus during that meeting was to add a new "identify-actions" keyword
>> ('cancel') that would cancel any active identification mechanism.
>> >
>> > In addition, a new "printer-state-reasons" keyword
>> ('identifying-printer' was proposed, although given the existing
>> 'identify-printer-requested' value I like adding 'identify-printer-active'
>> instead) would be added to allow a Client to discover whether a printer is
>> currently identifying itself using an action other than 'cancel', which by
>> definition stops any active identification and removes the new keyword from
>> the "printer-state-reasons" attribute...
>> >
>> > The official registration would look like this:
>> >
>> >  Attributes (attribute syntax)
>> >    Keyword Attribute Value                       Reference
>> >    -----------------------                       ---------
>> >  identify-actions (1setOf type2 keyword)         [PWG5100.13]
>> >    cancel
>> >
>> >  printer-state-reasons (1setOf type2 keyword)    [RFC2911]
>> >    identify-printer-active
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > (I considered adding this to IPPSIX, but since this has application
>> outside of shared infrastructure/cloud deployments I think we should
>> register it separately...)
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________
>> > Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ipp mailing list
>> > ipp at pwg.org
>> > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ipp mailing list
>> ipp at pwg.org
>> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
> ipp at pwg.org
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
> ipp at pwg.org
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20131210/6ba1b721/attachment.html>


More information about the ipp mailing list