My view is that the mailto notification is bound to human readable. The
mailto method is bound to a standard application that presents notification
content to a human for interpretation and consumption. INDP may contain
octets that a human can decipher. The consumer of the content is an
application and the application is responsible for interpreting the content.
I resist binding mailto to Internet and INDP to intranet. I see no reason
that INDP would not be used on the Internet. It should be a site specific
policy decision to allow INDP or IPP through a firewall.
As I stated before I favor a notification being sent out at INDP
registration. That allows a notification recipient to determine if the
infrastructure supports INDP notification.
Xerox Architecture Center
Email: Peter.Zehler at usa.xerox.com
Voice: (716) 265-8755
FAX: (716) 265-8792
US Mail: Peter Zehler
800 Phillips Rd.
Webster NY, 14580-9701
From: harryl at us.ibm.com [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 1:01 AM
To: pmoore at peerless.com
Cc: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: Re: IPP> notification methods
I feel a more accurate way of looking at it is:
1. If a device is configured to provide event notification across the
Internet it MUST support mailto
2. If a device is configured to provide event notification in the context
of an Intranet it SHOULD support INDP
We could live with the proposal to bind human/mail vs. machine/indp.
However, this ignores the fact that INDP also handles human readable.
IBM Printing Systems
pmoore at peerless.com
Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org
07/20/2000 09:31 AM
To: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: IPP> notification methods
Following the SF meeting I would like to formally propose the following.
1. If a device wants to expose human readable events then it MUST support
2. If a device wants to expose machine readable events then it MUST
But we do not UNCONDITIONALLY require either.
(Now dons flame-proof clothing and awaits flaming)