Hi Ira,
I expect that this will be considered in the Overall MFD review on
Thursday..
Bill W.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 9:03 AM
To: William Wagner; Ira McDonald
Cc: mfd at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [MFD] Overall MFD Document
Hi Bill,
I haven't got any time this week to explore the latest
SM/2.0 XML schema, but...
If the power elements aren't named and scoped
exactly like the PWG Power Mgmt Model, then
the MFD Overall (and the XML Schema) should
be corrected accordingly. Power Model places
normative requirements on the representation
of the power elements in XML schema.
(I know Pete took these elements first from Power
MIB, not the Power Model - in both, several of the
properties have been renamed since November
for clarity and some properties have been added)
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
email: 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 Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 8:50 PM, William Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>
wrote:
> I have updated the MFD Overall Document to include the Delay and Power
> elements as they appear in the schema. These additions as well as the
> previous changes are intended subjects for this week’s MFD conference
call.
> The updated posting are:
>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/wd-mfdoverallmod10-20100111.pdf and
>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/wd-mfdoverallmod10-20100111.doc>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Bill Wagner
>>>> From: William Wagner [mailto:wamwagner at comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:49 PM
> To: 'mfd at pwg.org'
> Subject: Overall MFD Document
>>>> Happy New Year!
>>>> I have posted an update to the Overall MFD Model document, reflecting
those
> issues from the December face-to-face that I can address.
>>>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/wd-mfdoverallmod10-20100104.pdf>>>> Note some schema diagrams need updating and are awaiting a new schema
post.
> Other items also remain open.
>>>> MS Word continues to be difficult, especially in screwing up cross
> references.
>>>> In addition to highlighting some new text, there are some comments that,
to
> avoid balloons, do not show up. They are as follows:
>>>> C1
>> Paragraph 2.3 Needs to be reworked to reflect schema changes.
>> C2
>> Table 17.Keyword for Feed direction?
>> C3
>> Section 7.3 originally followed the pattern of Scan and Resource specs,
> although additional operations added have had descriptions derived from
IPP
> corollaries. However, operation attributes, error messages etc have not
been
> discussed. Should they be?
>> Note that some new operation descriptions have been added.
>> C4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10
>> Service Operations in 7.3.2: Since there can be multiple instance of a
given
> service type, need the request identify the instance? If so, how?
>> C7
>> Para 7.3.2.8 New writeup
>> C 11
>> Para 7.3.2.18 The IPP spec includes processing stopped as a valid state
from
> which to suspend a job. Is a job in Processing Stopped considered a
current
> job? If any Job is in Processing Stopped, is the operation considered
> successful? Following paragraph says no.
>> C12
>> Para 7.3.2.18 If the JobID is included and it is one of several jobs in
> processing, I assume only the ID'd job is suspended?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Bill Wagner
>>>>>> From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:Peter.Zehler at xerox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:49 PM
> To: William Wagner; mfd at pwg.org> Subject: RE: [MFD] Job State Transition Diagram error
>>>> Bill,
>> My only points for the items below was that
>> 1) System configuration or conditions can cause the transition as
well
> as an operation
>> 2) Job operations or conditions can affect this transition change for
a
> specific job just as well as service wide operations or conditions can
> affect this job transitions.
>> The issue was raised by an implementer that was unsure if a required
> resource would affect the state of a pending job.
>> Pete
>>>>>> Peter Zehler
>> Xerox Research Center Webster
> Email: 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 Wagner [mailto:wamwagner at comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:36 PM
> To: Zehler, Peter; mfd at pwg.org> Subject: RE: [MFD] Job State Transition Diagram error
>>>> Yes. Right now, the transition effectors are indicated by italicized
general
> statements (e.g., Job Completed) or citing actual operations (CreateJob).
> Although it would be useful to indicate how each transition may be
> effected by an operation, that would probably render the diagram
unreadable.
> Further, we appear to be constantly adding more operations and now
operation
> attributes that affect Job State. My inclination is to replace all
remaining
> operation transition effectors with generic statements; e.g., HoldJob
> Request becomes Job Held. The correlation between the general statements
and
> the transition effectors (Operations, Processing Events, Problem Events,
> Operation Attribute enabled Events) would be dealt with elsewhere (perhaps
> in the descriptions of Operations).
>>>> That does bring up another question. How many more of the IPP operations
> will be re-stated as <service> Operations? I have attached (if it gets
> through) a table of IPP operations (derived from the recent IPP work)
> versus MFD Operations as they now are listed, with my understanding of
> correlation. I think it best to resolve the discrepancies now.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Bill Wagner
>>>> From: mfd-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:mfd-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
Zehler,
> Peter
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:03 AM
> To: mfd at pwg.org> Subject: [MFD] Job State Transition Diagram error
>>>> All,
>>>> The diagram for the Job State transition is incorrect.
>> 1) The transition from Pending to PendingHeld only shows the HoldJob
> event. According to the definition of the PendingHeld state “the job is
not
> a candidate for processing for any number of reasons and will return to
the
> Pending state when the reasons are no longer present”. An example could
be
> an unavailable resource.
>> 2) The transition from Processing to ProcessingStopped says “Service
> Stopped”. I believe that it should be “Job or Service Stopped”. The
> commands Suspend<service>Job and Resume<service>Job cause the transitions.
> A required resource or a critical fault will cause the transition to
> ProcessingStopped. The resource becoming available or clearing the
critical
> fault can cause the reverse transition. The currently described Service
> conditions for the transition remain valid.
>>>> Pete
>>>>>> Peter Zehler
>> Xerox Research Center Webster
> Email: 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
>>>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> _______________________________________________
> mfd mailing list
>mfd at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd>>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.