IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery method by July 7

IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery method by July 7

IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery method by July 7

Manros, Carl-Uno B cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com
Thu Jun 29 12:03:58 EDT 2000


Harry,

I think that most people have thought that b) is "your" method. If it is
still not what you expect it to be, we need to discuss that further.

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Xerox Architecture Center - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros at cp10.es.xerox.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: harryl at us.ibm.com [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 8:26 AM
To: Carl-Uno Manros
Cc: kugler at us.ibm.com; cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com; HPARRA at novell.com;
ipp at pwg.org; Paul Moore; Herriot, Robert
Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery method
by July 7





I constantly have failed to get my point across... especially if you think
d) Multiple responses to an IPP operation is the same as b) Intelligent
polling!!! Rules... what rules?! None of the proposed solutions appear to
allow the simple notification of job complete on a real time basis to the
job submitter without stressing the infrastructure or imposing additional
protocol support.

If by b), you are referring to the "ipp-notify-get" methodology, it
appears to be the closest thing to "native" IPP but it deposits the
heuristics in the wrong end of the transaction (the client must still
decide/guess when to poll). It makes much more sense for the
server/printer to control the glide path to real-time notifications.
Still, if this is what you mean (b = "ipp-notify-get" delivery method)...
it may be the closest thing we have to a simple, native protocol for
events.

Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems




"Carl-Uno Manros" <carl at manros.com>
06/29/2000 08:43 AM


        To:     Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, "Hugo Parra"
<HPARRA at novell.com>
        cc:     <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com>, <ipp at pwg.org>, "Paul Moore"
<pmoore at peerless.com>, Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS
        Subject:        RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification
delivery method by July 7


Harry,

No, no, we can't keeep changing the rules or we will not get anything out
of
this.

Also your suggested alternative d) is the same as b), we only have 4
alternatives.

Carl-Uno

> -----Original Message-----
> From: harryl at us.ibm.com [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 6:12 AM
> To: Hugo Parra
> Cc: carl at manros.com; cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com; ipp at pwg.org; Paul Moore;
> kugler at us.ibm.com
> Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery method
> by July 7
>
>
>
>
>
> I would amend Hugo's questions... and request that the options be as
> follows:
>
>   a) over email
>   b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
>   c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> direction)
>   d) "Native" IPP notifications (new - augment IPP to allow multiple
> responses to any operation)
>   e) over SNMP
>   f) don't mandate any
>
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
>
>
>
>
> "Hugo Parra" <HPARRA at novell.com>
> Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org
> 06/28/2000 08:15 PM
>
>
>         To:     <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com>, <carl at manros.com>,
> <pmoore at peerless.com>
>         cc:     <ipp at pwg.org>
>         Subject:        RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification
> delivery method by July 7
>
>
> Shouldn't the options be ...
>
>   a) over email
>   b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
>   c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> direction)
>   d) over SNMP
>   e) don't mandate any
>
> Otherwise those who give each entry a weight of zero, basically through
> away their vote.
>
> -Hugo
>
> >>> "Carl-Uno Manros" <carl at manros.com> 06/28/00 07:52PM >>>
> Oh no, I managed to not be completely clear after all.
>
> The weighting is for the IETF standards texts.
>
> What gets tested in the bake-off is the decision of the PWG, which hosts
> the
> bake-off event, and has nothing to do with this exercise.
>
> Carl-Uno
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of
> > pmoore at peerless.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 5:47 PM
> > To: Manros, Carl-Uno B
> > Cc: IETF-IPP
> > Subject: Re: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery
method
> > by July 7
> >
> >
> > If this is a vote for making things mandatory :-
> >
> > 0 a) over email
> > 0 b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> > 0 c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> > direction)
> > 0 d) over SNMP
> >
> > I dont think mandating is useful
> >
> > If this is a vote for 'what specs do we need to agree and bakeoff
ASAP'
> >
> > 2 a) over email
> > 0 b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> > 2 c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> > direction)
> > 0 d) over SNMP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com> on 06/28/2000
05:17:16
> PM
> >
> > To:   IETF-IPP <ipp at pwg.org>
> > cc:    (bcc: Paul Moore/AUCO/US)
> >
> > Subject:  IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery
> > method by July 7
> >
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > The IETF does not do voting, but we can ask people to allocate weights
> to
> > their favorite method. From the result I hope to get a picture of
> > whether we
> > have a clear "rough consensus" favorite, or if we should just avoid
> trying
> > to make any particular notification delivery method the "required" or
> > "mandated" one.
> >
> > So let the weightings begin!
> >
> > Here are the rules:
> >
> > 1) We have 4 candidate notification delivery methods, briefly
> > described as:
> >
> >  a) over email
> >  b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> >  c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> direction)
> >  d) over SNMP
> >
> > 2) You have a total of maximum 4 weight points to allocate between the
4
> > methods above.
> >
> >  a) You can put all your 4 points on one favorite and leave the
> > other three
> > with 0 each. (the 'all eggs in one basket' option)
> >  b) If you don't really mind which method, you can give 1 point to
each
> of
> > the methods. (the 'chicken' option)
> >  c) You can allocate your 4 points somewhere between the two extreme
> cases
> > above. (the 'diplomatic' options)
> >  d) If you don't want to make ANY of the methods "required" or
> "mandated",
> > put a 0 for ALL four methods! (the 'don't even try it' option)
> >
> > If you still haven't understood the rules, please read the above
> > text 3 more
> > times, before you make a fool of yourself....., or of me for not
> > being clear
> > enough ;-{
> >
> > So please collect your wits and send your weights to the IPP DL no
later
> > than next Friday July 7!
> >
> > Have fun.... and remember that if you do not participate you cannot
win!
> >
> > Carl-Uno
> >
> > Carl-Uno Manros
> > Principal Engineer - Xerox Architecture Center - Xerox Corporation
> > 701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
> > Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
> > Email: manros at cp10.es.xerox.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>






More information about the Ipp mailing list