I suggest that you go read those threads on the IETF Apps Area WG list.
Even the "REST" supporters there have regularly admitted that there is no
agreed concise definition and they're trying to say "just read Roy
14-year-old dissertation". REST is a marketing term, not a term of art.
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
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 Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Randy Turner <rturner at amalfisystems.com>
>> There may be arguments about the definition of REST, but the RESTful
> semantics are not going away
>> The IETF is building their “internet of things” technology on RESTful
> semantics - they have yet to sell that outside the IETF, so we’ll see what
> wins. Further, Facebook, Google, and Twitter APIs are all RESTful.
>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with all Mike's summary points below.
>> The selection of an available FaxInJobTicket is based on the Metrics
> structure (which Pete worked out). I don't see any service configuration
> issues (for a NON-Cloud binding).
>> With respect to bindings, there is no other game in town in the PWG
> except IPP bindings. No printer vendor has ever publicly announced
> the shipping of an Web Service binding that conforms to the PWG SM
> - Ira
>> PS - A note of caution about PWG developing so-called "RESTful"
> bindings to anything. There's a religious war going on currently on
> the IETF Apps Area WG mailing list about a simple request for a
> concise definition of "REST" - one camp admits that there is *no*
> simple definition and wants their idol left alone - the other camp is
> getting tired of hearing about "REST" that nobody can define - it's
> only a matter of time before this escalates to the IESG itself.
>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> The Cloud Service Management Operations are directed to the Cloud service
>> and only manage the Cloud service. We don't relay them through the Proxy
>> to the Local service and have no way to do so in the current model - all
>> out of scope for a long time. Similarly, there is no way to remotely
>> manage the Proxy - out of scope.
>>>> All client-initiated job-based services that span between the Cloud and
>> Local services are in scope for the Cloud Imaging Requirements and Model:
>>>> - FaxIn does not span and jobs are not client-initiated. It should be
>> out of scope.
>>>> - FaxOut MAY span and has client-initiated jobs. Cloud-based FaxOut
>> through a Local service should be in scope. Purely Cloud FaxOut (with the
>> fax modem in the cloud too) is the same as SM FaxOut and should be out of
>> scope. Similarly, FaxOut from the Local Device should be out of scope
>> since either a) the Cloud isn't involved or b) it *is* involved in some
>> way, but not using the interface in this document.
>>>> - Print spans and has client-initiated jobs. It should be in scope.
>>>> - Resource does not span and has no jobs. It should be out of scope.
>>>> - Scan spans and has client-initiated jobs. If should be in scope.
>>>> - Transform does not span. It should be out of scope.
>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 1:23 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>
> cloud mailing list
>cloud at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud>>>