Only because you have an assumed protocol solution!
---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 03/20/97 07:45
AM ---------------------------
Robert.Herriot @ Eng.Sun.COM
03/19/97 06:03 PM
To: Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM
cc:
Subject: Re: IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements
Even if we break up the job into two operations create-job and
send-rest-of-job, it is unlikely that the jam will occur between
these two operations. Instead it will occur in the midst of one
of them. The scenario still needs a correction, regardless of
whether print is performed with one operation or more than one
operation.
Bob Herriot
> From rdebry@us.ibm.com Wed Mar 19 13:15:48 1997
>
> 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 > > >