I've updated Hugo Parra's delivery method and protocol specification.
I changed the scheme name to follow the pattern that we discussed on the
telecon that the IETF likes to avoid abbreviations:
For this delivery method, I've used the working name 'send', since it uses
the Send-Notifications operation. So the scheme name is 'ipp-notify-send'
We'd like to discuss this method at next week's meeting when we discuss our
various delivery methods. I've posted the files at:
Here is the Abstract:
The IPP event notification specification [ipp-ntfy] is an OPTIONAL extension
to IPP/1.0 and IPP/1.1. [ipp-ntfy] requires the definition of one or more
delivery methods for dispatching event notification reports to Notification
Recipients. This document describes the semantics and syntax of the
'ipp-notify-send' event notification delivery method that is itself a
request/response protocol. For this delivery method, an IPP Printer sends
(pushes) IPP event Notifications to the Notification Recipients using the
protocol defined herein which includes HTTP as a transport.
There are 5 issues remaining:
ISSUE 01 - What should the name of this delivery method and protocol be that
we use in the title of this document?
ISSUE 02 - What should the scheme name be? Consider 'ipp-notify-send' a
working title, until we see several schemes. The 'ipp-notify-poll' delivery
method is another example. The IETF likes words or well-recognized
acronyms, not abbreviations in scheme names, so lets include "notify"?
ISSUE 03 - Should the scheme name be used in the title?
ISSUE 04 - "human-readable-report" has been added to the [ipp-ntfy]
Notification Model document, so ok to change this description to be a
reference to "human-readable-report" in [ipp-ntfy]?
ISSUE 05 - Should we move the status codes into the Notification Model
document in order to have the same status codes for any other delivery
method that might be defined?