[IPP] IPP Scan question.

[IPP] IPP Scan question.

[IPP] IPP Scan question.

Ira McDonald blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Wed Sep 17 01:15:38 UTC 2014


Hi Daniel,

I'll try to answer this one.  Mike and Pete can chime in of course.

Section 3.5 Design Requirements simply requires that the *spec*
defines methods and attributes for both Push and Pull scan - NOT
that any Printer or Client has to implement them.

Sections 8.x are correct that Push Scan is OPTIONAL - this was
always intended.

The old section 11.1 requirement (SHOULD) was redundant and
removed in the clarification of sections 11.x in general.

Does that help?

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, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Manchala, Daniel <Daniel.Manchala at xerox.com
> wrote:

>  Section 3.5 (Design Requirements) Item 3. says:
>
>  * Push Scan and Pull Scan are required.
>
>
>  This statement (...are required...) states that the Push Scan is
> required.
>
>
>  However, Section 8.2 Job Template attributes: destination-uris says:
>
>
>  * Scan Services that support Push Scanning MUST support this attribute.
>
>
>  This statement (...that support ...) states that the Push Scan is
> optional.
>
>  Again, Section 8.3.2 destination-uri-schemes-supported says:
>
>
>   * Scan Services that support Push Scan MUST support this attribute.
>
>
>  This statement (...that support ...) states that the Push Scan is
> optional.
>
>
>  Section 11.1 mentioned "Scan Services MUST support Pull Scan and SHOULD
> support Push Scan" in an older version of the document (20140725), but the
> current version does not mention that.
>
>
>  Can you clarify this?
>
>
>  Thanks,
>
> Daniel.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140916/b0a4ee1f/attachment.html>


More information about the ipp mailing list