> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM [mailto:kugler at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 9:15 AM
>> Bob wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM [mailto:kugler at us.ibm.com]
> >... snip
> >> But we probably need some way to "expire"
> >> undelivered notifications, so they don't build up
> >> indefinitely if clients
> >> go away. Could be a simple, specified maximum guaranteed
> >> retention time
> >> for undelivered notifications, or an attribute (settable or not).
> >I assumed that we would use the same "lease" mechanism as in
> >Unlike "ippget", the Printer doesn't have to try to be
> intelligent about the
> >lease time. It can always pick a small number, such as 30
> seconds for all
> >leases and assume that the client will perform
> Get-Notifications within a
> >few seconds.
>> That's fine with me, but I thought the "lease" mechanism in
> "ippget" used
> the "begin-to-expire-time-interval" attribute, which I
> thought you wanted
> to remove. Maybe we need a different (optionally settable) Printer
> attribute, like "maximum-guaranteed-notification-retention-time".
> Alternatively, we could specify a fixed constant in the
> standard, similar
> to TCP's TTL (maximum "Time To Live", specified as 2 minutes).
When I suggested that the Printer not return the
"begin-to-expire-time-interval" attribute, I didn't mean that the Printer
shouldn't have an expiration time for Event Notifications. Your idea of a
"notify-retention-time" Printer Attribute is what I had in mind.