Don
To: ipp%pwg.org @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP
cc: (bcc: Don Wright)
From: rdebry%us.ibm.com @ interlock.lexmark.com (Roger K Debry) @ SMTP
Date: 03/19/97 04:10:19 PM
Subject: Re: IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements
Classification:
Prologue:
Epilogue: Roger K deBry
Senior Techncial Staff Member
Architecture and Technology
IBM Printing Systems
email: rdebry@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-303-924-4080
That's not clear! It depends on what we finally end up with as the protocol.
You've obviously assumed one approach (which might be the correct one, but
since we haven't yet agreed, it is still an open issue.
---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 03/19/97 02:09
PM ---------------------------
ipp-owner @ pwg.org
03/19/97 01:59 PM
To: don @ lexmark.com@internet, Robert.Herriot @ Eng.Sun.COM@internet
cc: ipp @ pwg.org@internet
Subject: Re: IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements
The important point here is that we cannot have what looks like a response
to a print operation and then send more data.
> From don@lexmark.com Wed Mar 19 05:12:19 1997
> >page 37: section 8.14.
> >
> > I think we agreed that the last request "Here is last part of the document
to > > print" and response would be deleted and replaced with words saying
that > the job > > resumed printing. > > I struggled with this one because
in the scenario the printer is not capable of > spooling. I think this case
simply indicates that an error occurred while there > was still data to be sent
to this printer and once the problem was fixed, > printing > resumed and more
print data was sent. The cases we discussed where > there was language like
this were all chunking cases.This is not a chunking > case but rather a
non-spooling printer case. I think I should leave it as it > stands. > >
> Don >