IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

Wagner,William bwagner at digprod.com
Wed Jun 21 10:34:50 EDT 2000


 I too evidentially left the New York meeting a few minutes too early (to
catch a flight that was cancelled). I would have opposed INDP as the
mandatory notification and believe that, for true internet operation,  Mail
To is the only reasonable choice. So if it is to be decided on the list, my
vote is for mail to.

Of course, the only vote that counts is the customers. Is IPP a readily
usable service that provides for internet print job delivery and appropriate
notification with a minimum of special code and dealing with the IS
department?


William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
Director of Technology
Imaging Division
NETsilicon, Inc.
781-398-4588


-----Original Message-----
From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 8:54 AM
To: henrik.holst at i-data.com
Cc: ipp at pwg.org; peter.ultved at i-data.com
Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement


Henrik:

Perhaps you had left at that point but a vote was taken and INDP was
selected as
the mandatory noticification method pending finalization through discussion
on
the e-mail list.

As far as firewalls are concerned, passing or not passing through them is
actually irrelevant but ...... it can be enabled as desired because we plan
for
INDP to be on a specific port.

**********************************************
* Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com *
* Chair, Printer Working Group               *
* Chair, IEEE MSC                            *
*                                            *
* Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances  *
* Lexmark International                      *
* 740 New Circle Rd                          *
* Lexington, Ky 40550                        *
* 859-232-4808 (phone) 859-232-6740 (fax)    *
* (Former area code 606 works until 10/1)    *
**********************************************





henrik.holst%i-data.com at interlock.lexmark.com on 06/21/2000 03:52:40 AM

To:   ipp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com,
      peter.ultved%i-data.com at interlock.lexmark.com
cc:    (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement




Well it was my understanding that we didn't agree on a mandatory method.
And the INDP method
won't go through a firewall, so if you are searching for a mandatory method
I would say MAILTO.

Henrik





"Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler at usa.xerox.com>@pwg.org on 20-06-2000 17:43:51

Sent by:  owner-ipp at pwg.org


To:   "IPP Discussion List (E-mail)" <IPP at pwg.org>
cc:

Subject:  IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement


All,

I am working the content planning for the IPP Bake-Off.  I want to be sure
that there is PWG wide agreement on the notification issue.

It is my understanding that INDP is the mandated IPP notification method.
There were some minor updates that have been agreed to and we are awaiting
the final version of the document for PWG last call.  The minor changes are
documented in the meeting minutes from May meeting of the PWG.    This
upcoming INDP document will be the document that the notification section
of
the Bake-Off will use as a base.

Is this correct or did I misunderstand?

Pete

                    Peter Zehler
                    XEROX
                    Xerox Architecture Center
                    Email: Peter.Zehler at usa.xerox.com
                    Voice:    (716) 265-8755
                    FAX:      (716) 265-8792
                    US Mail: Peter Zehler
                            Xerox Corp.
                            800 Phillips Rd.
                            M/S 139-05A
                            Webster NY, 14580-9701











More information about the Ipp mailing list