IPP> notification methods

IPP> notification methods

IPP> notification methods

pmoore at peerless.com pmoore at peerless.com
Fri Aug 4 13:50:58 EDT 2000


You can have 1 INDP server supporting 100s of printers. In fact I suspect this
will be a common configuration. A spooler will use INDP to get machine readable
notifciations from the devices it is using and will then genrate email to
various interested parties - who may well have used IPP to ask for email
notification. The advantage here is the the spooler can generate consistent,
localized messages.




kugler at us.ibm.com on 08/04/2000 10:02:33 AM

To:   ipp at pwg.org
cc:    (bcc: Paul Moore/AUCO/US)

Subject:  Re: IPP> notification methods





There is a huge PRACTICAL difference between mailto vs. indp:  indp
requires a server per user, mailto only requires a client.  There is a
great difference in cost, complexity, resource consumption, and security
considerations between running a client on the Internet and deploying a
server on the Internet.  Most Internet servers are used by many users, so
the cost is affordable.  A server per user just won't scale to the
Internet.

     -Carl


--- In ipp at egroups.com, don at l... wrote:
> The real difference between the use of mailto versus INDP is that mailto
is for
> a receipient who does not have an IPP/INDP enabled client or does not
have it
> running at the time the notification is to be received.
>
> **********************************************
> * Don Wright                 don at l... *
> * 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 until 10/1 was 606)      *
> **********************************************
>
>
>
> harryl%us.ibm.com at i... on 07/26/2000 10:54:23 AM
>
> To:   Don_Wright/Lex/Lexmark at LEXMARK
> cc:   ipp%pwg.org at i...,
>       pmoore%peerless.com at i... (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject:  Re: IPP> notification methods
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I accept that INDP may "work" in the Internet if properly configured.
But,
> in this case, you wouldn't necessarily need to mandate mailto for human
> readable. So either association (mail/human - indp/machine  OR
mail/inter
> - indp/intra) is equally flawed.
>
> Then... the only thing certain is that mailto is NOT intended for machine
> readable. Why don't we just state that?
>
> Peter Z. has a suggestion for helping to determine what is supported.
> > a notification... sent out at INDP registration... (that) allows a...
> > recipient to determine if the infrastructure supports INDP...
>
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
>
>
>
>
> don at l...
> Sent by: owner-ipp at p...
> 07/26/2000 05:01 AM
>
>
>         To:     Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS
>         cc:     pmoore at p..., ipp at p...
>         Subject:        Re: IPP> notification methods
>
>
> I fail to see the reason to ASSUME that every implementation of IPP
> NOTIFICATION
> will occur behind a firewall that is NOT configured to allow INDP
> notifications
> to pass through it.  Any attempt to associate "mailto" or "indp"
> EXCLUSIVELY
> with either INTERnets or INTRAnets is flawed.  If we would have used this
> argument for IPP in the beginning we would have made statements like:
>
> 1. If a device is configured to print across the Internet it IS OUT OF
> LUCK.
> 2. If a device is configured to print in the context of an Intranet it
> MUST
> support IPP.
>
> Let's separate the issue of the INTERNET vs INTRANET context of these
> delivery
> services.  When a customer decides they want these services, they will
> configure
> their firewalls (if present) to make it happen.
>
> **********************************************
> * Don Wright                 don at l... *
> * 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 until 10/1 was 606)      *
> **********************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> harryl%us.ibm.com at i... on 07/26/2000 01:00:41 AM
>
> To:   pmoore%peerless.com at i...
> cc:   ipp%pwg.org at i... (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> 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 p...
> Sent by: owner-ipp at p...
> 07/20/2000 09:31 AM
>
>
>         To:     ipp at p...
>         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