[IPP] IPP Scan - Is Push scanning mandatory?

[IPP] IPP Scan - Is Push scanning mandatory?

[IPP] IPP Scan - Is Push scanning mandatory?

Michael Sweet msweet at apple.com
Mon Feb 10 20:29:16 UTC 2014


Pete,

I'm not sure it makes much sense to include the push schemes in the TXT record since you need to load the hardcopy to be scanned on a particular device - probably better to browse for _ipp._tcp,_scan and then do a Get-Printer-Attributes to get the values you are looking for, *if* you really wanted an application that could help a user find a MFD with push scan capabilities.

The more likely use case is that you browse to find the MFD you just loaded the hardcopy in, send an Identify-Printer to confirm, and then send a Get-Printer-Attributes to get the MFD capabilities (which might include whether push scan to an email address is possible, for example).  For that you don't need the push schemes in the TXT record...


On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:13 PM, Zehler, Peter <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com> wrote:

> Mike,
>  
> That works for me and for some internal requests.  The additional request for having Push optional would be to include a discovery attribute to locate Scanners with push capability. 
>  
> What do you think about a comma separated list of push URL schemes and an empty list indicates a Pull only scanner?
>  
>  
> Peter Zehler
> 
> Xerox Research Center Webster
> Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com
> Office: +1 (585) 265-8755
> Mobile: +1 (585) 329-9508
> FAX: +1 (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] On Behalf Of Michael Sweet
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 3:07 PM
> To: Zehler, Peter
> Cc: IPP at pwg.org
> Subject: Re: [IPP] IPP Scan - Is Push scanning mandatory?
>  
> Pete,
>  
> I thought we were requiring pull scan and recommending push scan because low-end devices couldn't retry a push automatically. Any push-related attributes would be conditionally required if the service supports push.  And any retry-related attributes would be conditionally required for services that do output spooling.
>  
>  
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 2:59 PM, Zehler, Peter <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> All,
>  
> I have conflicting notes.  I have some Push scan related attributes marked as conditionally mandatory while Pull and Push scan are listed as required.
>  
> My opinion is that Push and Pull scanning are mandated and therefore the Push related attributes are also mandatory.  For Push scanning the “http”, “https”, “ftp” and  “ftps URI schemes MUST be supported.
>  
> Any objections?
>  
> Peter Zehler
> 
> Xerox Research Center Webster
> Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com
> Office: +1 (585) 265-8755
> Mobile: +1 (585) 329-9508
> FAX: +1 (585) 265-7441
> US Mail: Peter Zehler
> Xerox Corp.
> 800 Phillips Rd.
> M/S 128-25E
> Webster NY, 14580-9701
>  
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
> ipp at pwg.org
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
>  
> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>  

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20140210/9bec74bc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4881 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20140210/9bec74bc/attachment.p7s>


More information about the ipp mailing list