[IPP] Models

[IPP] Models

[IPP] Models

Zehler, Peter Peter.Zehler at xerox.com
Fri Jan 10 18:05:00 UTC 2014


Bill,
I don't think I'd object to eliminating the <service> term in defining operations (e.g., Create<service>Job) , in the SM3 document.  Even if they are  service-type specific I'd still try to keep the service name out of the operation.
The caveat I have is that we introduced this naming convention in operations and in attributes to get around the use of "print" in the names when they turned out to be more general as we expanded the scope from Print to MFD.
Pete

Peter Zehler

Xerox Research Center Webster
Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com<mailto:Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com>
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-7441
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-25E
Webster NY, 14580-9701


From: William A Wagner [mailto:wamwagner at comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 12:02 PM
To: Zehler, Peter; ipp at pwg.org; 'Semantic Model 3.0 Workgroup discussion list'
Subject: RE: [IPP] Models

Pete,

The configuration of an " IPP Printer" being composed of an IPP Server and a Print Service follows the diagram in IPP SIX and, indeed, goes back to RFC 2911.  Furthermore, the "output device" was not considered part of the IPP Printer. We did not necessarily adhere to this configuration in the MFD model where we defined the Device as representing the hardware implementing the Service, prompting two distinct uses of the word "device". I think the point of separating the IPP Server and the Print Service  was that IPP just defines the IPP interface to the IPP Printer but does not define the form or specifics of the Print Service (one could argue that the Semantic Model does). But the separation is convenient in considering IPP  multifunction so that, as you suggest, there is a common IPP front end to potentially multiple imaging services.

I am inclined, in the SM3 document, to eliminate the <service> term in defining operations (e.g., Create<service>Job), unless they are  service-type specific. The understanding would be that the specific service is in the address.  What is your opinion in this?

Thanks,
Bill Wagner

From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:Peter.Zehler at xerox.com]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 9:06 AM
To: William A Wagner; ipp at pwg.org<mailto:ipp at pwg.org>; 'Semantic Model 3.0 Workgroup discussion list'
Subject: RE: [IPP] Models

Bill,

I'm a little confused on what you have labeled as an IPP Server and IPP Printer.  My view is that an IPP Server is what you have labeled as IPP Printer.  It contains the required protocol stacks, resources and service instances.  I have always understood an IPP Printer to be an instance of a Print Service.  This would map to a Virtual Printer in ISO 10175 DPA.

I have assumed that there would be a single IPP stack implementation (i.e., IPP Server in your first diagram) that would front end the service instances. Each service instance would be referenced by its unique URL (e.g., same URI Scheme, hostname and port, different paths)  Implementers are free to do things differently but I assume the intent of the IPP specification would be to multiplex all the IPP Services over a single port (i.e., 631)

I agree that we could have used generic verbs but once we finished print we were stuck with the names of the verb.  Since IPP uses an enumeration we can reuse the enumeration across the services.  In the semantic model the operation does not really identify the service type.  The Service URL identifies the service type.  The operation names are simply service specific aliases for a common semantic operation.  We could have opted for a generic name but we went with a naming convention instead.

Pete

Peter Zehler

Xerox Research Center Webster
Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com<mailto:Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com>
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-7441
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-25E
Webster NY, 14580-9701


From: ipp-bounces at pwg.org<mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org> [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of William A Wagner
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 12:57 PM
To: ipp at pwg.org<mailto:ipp at pwg.org>; 'Semantic Model 3.0 Workgroup discussion list'
Subject: [IPP] Models

I  am unclear on a Semantic Model configuration issue, which also may relate to IPP multifunction. The Semantic Model assumes that  communication is from client to service.  But in our operations, we identify the Service (e.g., CancelFaxInJob), which should not be necessary if the operation is directed to the service.  On the other hand, depending  upon where you want to put the transport address boundary, it is reasonable to think of operations being directed to the MFD, which corresponds to the System, in which case the service should be identified. Of course, this is inadequate if there are multiple services of a given type in the same system. Bottom line, should operations identify the Service type?

With respect to IPP, should the multi service configuration look like A or B below? (or perhaps something else entirely?) Again, the modeling question is whether the service  identification is included in the operation.
[IPP Printer A.jpg][IPP Printer B.jpg]
IPP Multifunction A                                                                                                                                                                                         IPP Multifunction B

Thanks,
Bill Wagner


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20140110/410b4607/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14087 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20140110/410b4607/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16329 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20140110/410b4607/attachment-0001.jpg>


More information about the ipp mailing list