[IPP] Required real-time clock prevents System Service use by someprinters

[IPP] Required real-time clock prevents System Service use by someprinters

[IPP] Required real-time clock prevents System Service use by someprinters

Michael Sweet msweet at apple.com
Sun Oct 2 16:56:30 UTC 2016


Bill,

> On Oct 2, 2016, at 12:20 PM, wamwagner at comcast.net wrote:
> 
> I am surprised to see the RTC (a term I have disliked since it means something else at the detailed hardware level) or NTP question come up again. This was an issue with the printer MIB 15 years ago, but since even the most minor device seems to have time keeping capabilities today, I did think it was an non-issue. Smith’s message suggests this may be wrong. But I suggest that any imaging system complex enough to concern itself with system functions will have timekeeping capability. Unless someone can come up with a real and valid example of a networked imaging device for which system service capability is appropriate that does not have timekeeping capability, I suggest that these time related attributes remain required.

The main issue is entry-level printers that lack a battery-backed real-time clock, so you need to set the date-time once after each power cycle.  Many consumer inkjet printers ask the user to enter the date and time when you power them up, others will try to get the time from the network or Client request.



> Thanks,
> Bill Wagner
>  
>  
>  
> From: Ira McDonald
> Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 11:42 AM
> To: ipp at pwg.org; Ira McDonald
> Subject: [IPP] Required real-time clock prevents System Service use by someprinters
>  
> Hi,
> 
> The System Service requirement for a running tick counter and
> for an actual RTC w/ meaningful time would prevent the use of any
> Resource operations by some printers.  Also, the firmware update
> and graceful restart abilities, which move away from traditional
> vendor- and model-specific approaches and improve Managed
> Print Service compatibility.
> 
> Questions:
> 
> (1) Should we reduce the various "date-time-at-xxx" attributes to 
> RECOMMENDED?
> -- Comment - they are REQUIRED in IPP Everywhere
>  
> (2) Should we allow the various "time-at-xxx" attributes to be
> trivial implementations (i.e., without meaningful tick counter)?
> -- Comment - they are REQUIRED in RFC2911/RFC2911bis,
> with some ambiguity about implementation 
>  
> Note that I've personally been a proponent of required RTC
> with meaningful date/time for years, so I'm conflicted about
> bringing this subject up.
> 
> WDYT?
> 
> 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
> Jan-April: 579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
> May-Dec: PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
> ipp at pwg.org
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer



More information about the ipp mailing list