Hi Guerney,
My two cents.
I'm sure Mike can respond more articulately.
But the literal reading of 'print-save' and 'save-only' is *just* some form
of the *processed* raw Document data (definitely NOT the Document
object w/ metadata). That's unacceptable and useless IMO.
Although the IPP F2F minutes record that you think that "output-device"
of NULL is a hack, it seems sound and reasonable to me.
And I still like "put a stake in the heart of job-save-disposition". I
think
JPS2 has serious issues of ambiguity.
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/blueroofmusichttp://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
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 6:13 PM Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & Standards
Architect) <smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>> I've prepared a JPS2 v2, and I'm ready to publish it and move into a
> design discussion about a replacement for "job-save-disposition" and other
> aspects of JPS2, but before I do that I wanted to make one more pass at the
> state of the current JPS2 document, to make sure we need to dive into this
> effort.
>> It was asserted in the August 2018 F2F and in the minutes that since the
> definitions of 'save-only' and 'print-and-save' on pages 40-41 only
> discusses Document Data, and doesn't say anything about retaining the Job,
> that sending "save-disposition" = 'save-only' or 'print-and-save' will not
> cause the Printer to retain the Job, and therefore JPS2 failed to actually
> support the "Job Save and Reprint Feature" with any of the attributes
> defined within. I can understand why it might be read that way, but I also
> think we don't need to take such a narrow interpretation of 5100.11. From
> my reading, when a Printer processes a Job that has the "save-disposition"
> member of "job-save-disposition" specifying 'save-only' or
> 'print-and-save', if there are no errors, the Printer can save the Job's
> Document Data to the location specified in "save-info" member of
> "job-save-disposition" (as per pages 40-41), but it can ALSO put the
> completed Job in the Job Retention Phase as per the definition of a Saved
> Job on 5100.11 page 13, so that it becomes a Saved job suitable for a
> reprint using control panel selection or an IPP Resubmit Job operation.
>> If there is a Printer that implements "job-save-disposition" and saves the
> Document Data but does not Retain the Job then that could be viewed as
> unfortunate behavior, but will any clients care about this misbehavior? Do
> any IPP Everywhere™ implement this unfortunate behavior?
>> To be clear, I am not trying to be difficult or combative - I natively
> don't understand why we need to be reading it the way that we are. The
> specification seems vague enough that such an interpretation doesn't seem
> unreasonable to me. And it seems much less destructive (and less work) to
> take that interpretation than to start over or create a JPS2v2.
>> Why specifically is this an inappropriate reading of 5100.11?
>> Thanks for your patience and thoughts?
>> Smith
>> /**
> Smith Kennedy
> Wireless & Standards Architect - IPG-PPS
> Standards - IEEE ISTO PWG / Bluetooth SIG / Wi-Fi Alliance / NFC Forum
> / USB-IF
> Chair, IEEE ISTO Printer Working Group
> HP Inc.
> */
>>>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180821/2f6645b0/attachment.html>