IPP> notification methods

IPP> notification methods

IPP> notification methods

Jay Martin jkm at underscore.com
Fri Aug 4 14:15:16 EDT 2000


Carl,

Would it be possible for you to *briefly* explain to the list
why INDP requires "a server per user"?  Some of us are a bit
confused by this.  Perhaps the definition of "server" varies
amongst some of us.  Thanks,

	...jay


kugler at us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> 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