I don't understand how we went from base IPP being written with an emphasis
on printing (not monitoring) to having IPP extensions forcing every client
to not only monitor, but to monitor using multiple different operations
(Get-Documents could be sufficient, couldn't it?). I'm not at all sure
that all clients in the world can be grouped into the three groups you
list, but the "Job submitting clients" you mention might be instructed to
submit Document Template attributes, but not do any monitoring at all.
I am a big fan of job monitoring clients, but I can't see MUSTing everyone
to agree with me. (Did I just coin a new verb? Drats--MUSTed again! :-)
"Hastings, Tom N"
<hastings at cp10.es To: ipp at pwg.org
.xerox.com> cc: sm at pwg.org
Sent by: Subject: SM> Re: ISSUE 18: Or should the client be REQUIRED to support some of the Document
owner-sm at pwg.org operations?
10/28/02 09:00 AM
We agreed not to require the client to support any Document operations,
because of the various kinds of clients: Job submitting ones, Operator
clients that control the system, and Monitoring clients that monitor the
system. Also a Job submitting client might monitor the system using, say,
the PWG Job Monitoring MIB, instead of the Get-Document-Attributes and
How about a conditional client conformance statement like the following:
A client MAY support any of the Document object operations defined in
section 3. However, if the client supports supplying Document Template
attributes in Document Creation operations, then the client MUST support
of the following Document operations: Create-Document, Send-Data,
Send-Document, Get-Document-Attributes, Get-Documents, and Cancel-Document.