IPP> notification methods

IPP> notification methods

IPP> notification methods

harryl at us.ibm.com harryl at us.ibm.com
Wed Jul 26 11:06:46 EDT 2000




Oohhh! This gets really sticky! I thought the ONE thing we had (mostly)
all agreed on was to not carry machine readable in e-mail. I think most of
the reviewers of the multitude of notification proposals fundamentally see
mailto as a sure fire way to get a human readable notification across the
Internet in need be and INDP as the preferred machine readable method
(thus Paul's recommended intuitive convention or mandate - mailto/human vs
indp/machine).

INDP is not an intranet-only solution (as recently pointed out by Don).
Albeit specific configuration is required. I think the argument, here, is
that nothing really works without someone pulling the strings. What we
view as "standard" holes in firewalls exist only because someone deemed
these necessary and appropriate to facilitate a meaningful experience on
"the web".

I tend to disagree with....
>And a MUST solution for the Internet proper that can't
>convey the full 'application/ipp' semantics is going to
>fail approval by the IETF.

Today the IETF has approved IPP with no notification. If we
later define "must support e-mail with text" I'm not
sure why this should "fail".

If your prophecy is true, I would interpret this as indicating
that INDP (which carried both) is the one and only notification
scheme that we should be mandating (which I do not advocate).

Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems




"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>
07/26/2000 08:46 AM


        To:     Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, pmoore at peerless.com
        cc:     ipp at pwg.org
        Subject:        RE: IPP> notification methods


Hi Harry,

It is a serious mistake to limit email to human-readable.
Otherwise I agree with your MUST for email below.

The IETF does NOT like intranet-only solutions in IETF
standards (they usually simply remove them).  And a MUST
solution for the Internet proper that can't convey the full
'application/ipp' semantics is going to fail approval by
the IETF.

If we are developing an Internet standard then we should
get on with it and abide by the IETF's rules and philosopy.

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox and Sharp
  High North Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: harryl at us.ibm.com [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 10:01 PM
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.

Harry Lewis
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
        cc:
        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
the
mailto method

2. If a device wants to expose machine readable events then it MUST
support the
INDP method

But we do not UNCONDITIONALLY require either.

(Now dons flame-proof clothing and awaits flaming)










More information about the Ipp mailing list