We need to fully specify the Cancel-Jobs operation, as this is a new
operation and not an extension of an existing operation (just copy the
Cancel-Job description from RFC2911 and tweak...)
Also, "1.4 The job-ids (boolean) Printer Description attribute" should
be "1.4 The job-ids-supported (boolean) ...".
Anyways, comments inline...
On Oct 8, 2009, at 12:58 AM, Tom Hastings wrote:
> I’ve uploaded v8 of the new Cancel-Jobs, enhanced Get-Jobs and Purge-
> Jobs uploaded at:
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/Cancel-Jobs-Get-Jobs-Purge-Jobs-enhancements-v8-20091007.doc>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/Cancel-Jobs-Get-Jobs-Purge-Jobs-enhancements-v8-20091007.pdf>> I’d like to get resolutions Thursday, as I finish the rest of Set 2
> on Thursday.
>> ISSUES for the new Cancel-Jobs operation are:
>> ISSUE: OK that the Printer MUST ignore “jobs-ids” if “my-jobs” =
> ‘true’ is supplied, rather than reject the request and return the
> ‘client-error-bad-request” status?
>
That sounds too ambiguous to me. We should return client-error-bad-
request if a client specifies both my-jobs and job-ids.
> ISSUE: OK that the Printer MUST reject a request that does NOT
> specify a list of jobs and does NOT specify “my-jobs” = ‘true’?
> What if the requesting user is the operator? Should this case
> cancel all jobs?
>> In other words, is it OK that the Cancel-Jobs operation does not
> allow the Operator to cancel all jobs?
>
No, Cancel-Jobs should cancel all jobs if my-jobs and job-ids are not
specified, just as Purge-Jobs does. The limitation is that only an
operator/administrator can cancel other users' jobs, so an ordinary
user sending a "Cancel-Jobs" operation without "my-jobs" or "job-ids"
will only work if there are only jobs owned by that user.
> ISSUE: OK that the Printer cancels the ones owned, but not the ones
> not owned? Then the Printer can repeatedly perform Cancel-Job
> operations on each job in the list, rather than checking the entire
> list before canceling any
>
We want Cancel-Jobs to be atomic, so if any of the jobs (implicitly or
explicitly via job-ids) are not owned by the user and the user is not
an operator or administrator, the printer should return client-error-
not-authorized, just like Cancel-Job does today.
>>> ISSUES for the Get-Jobs enhancement:
>> ISSUE: OK that the Printer MUST ignore “jobs-ids” if “my-jobs” =
> ‘true’ is supplied, rather than reject the request and return the
> ‘client-error-bad-request” status?
>
As for Cancel-Jobs, I think we need to return client-error-bad-request
because of the ambiguity.
___________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20091008/3c0f4d33/attachment-0001.html>