IFX Mail Archive: Re: PWG> RE: IFX> Attempt to close on t

IFX Mail Archive: Re: PWG> RE: IFX> Attempt to close on t

Re: PWG> RE: IFX> Attempt to close on the two Notification specs at the fa ce to face meetings

From: Carl Kugler (kugler@us.ibm.com)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 14:34:34 EDT

  • Next message: Robert Herriot: "Re: IPP> Re: IFX> Attempt to close on the two Notification specs at the face to face meetings"

    One reason to have the redirect is to reduce the number of connections
    that the printer has to maintain. Some printers are very limited in the
    number of simultaneous connections they can support (like, 4). The relay
    approach would only make that situation worse.

            -Carl

    "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
    Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org
    08/26/2002 06:25 PM

     
            To: ipp@pwg.org, ifx@pwg.org, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
            cc: pwg@pwg.org
            Subject: PWG> RE: IFX> Attempt to close on the two Notification specs at the fa ce
    to face meetings

    Harry et al,

    In answering Ira's note, a win-win approach occurred to me. This approach
    will allow a Printer to use a notification server, but won't put any
    burden
    on clients. I called Ira up and he is enthusiastic as well. He helped me
    flesh out the proposal. Here is the idea:

    When a Printer implements Get-Notifications using a Notification Server,
    why
    not have the Printer just pass each Get-Notifications request along to the
    Notification Server, which returns the response to the Printer which
    returns
    that response to the client. In protocol terminology, the Printer is
    "relaying" the Get-Notifications request to the notification server. Yes,
    this are 4 hops, instead of 2, but its transparent to the client. The
    Notification Server can return to the Printer the "redirect-uri" operation
    attribute as an advisory hint to the client (which the Printer passes back
    to the client) to improve the performance, but clients not knowing about
    that "redirect-uri" operation attribute would simply keep doing subsequent
    Get-Notifications to the Printer. The down side is that there are 4
    network
    hops, instead of 2, for the client that didn't take the hint and go
    directly
    to the Notification Server for subsequent Get-Notifications. In fact,
    with
    this approach we even eliminate the 'redirection-other-site' status code,
    since the Printer is REQUIRED to return an accurate and up to date
    Get-Notifications response on the first (and all subsequent)
    Get-Notifications returns (by relaying the request to the Notification
    Server).

    Is this a way forward for the IPPGET proposed standard?

    So the changes to the IPPGET document would be as follows:

    1. Delete the 'redirect-other-site' status code.

    2. Clarify that the "redirect-uri" operation attribute in the
    Get-Notifications response is just a hint that the Printer returns to
    improve performance when the Printer is implemented using a notification
    server.

    3. The client conformance section will say that the client SHOULD observe
    "redirect-uri" and try there (in order to improve performance by
    eliminating
    extra hops), but the client doesn't have to. When going to draft
    standard,
    if no one has implemented "redirect-uri", we delete it from the standard.

    4. In order not to get our feature confused with HTTP redirect, lets
    change
    the operation attribute returned from "redirect-uri" to
    "alternate-target-uri", since the client can perform the Get-Notifications
    to either the original Printer or the notification server for those
    Printers
    that use a notification server. Our feature is really a "relay", not a
    "redirect".

    Could this win-win proposal be discussed briefly during the PWG Plenary
    tomorrow (Tuesday, August 27) to see if we have consensus there (and we
    will
    discuss it on the mailing list to see if we have consensus there too)?

    Comments?

    Tom and Ira

    P.S. In the future, if we want to generalize the relay mechanism for other
    operations, the same operation attribute can be returned in any response.
    For job operations, we probably would also need to return
    "alternate-job-uri" and "alternate-job-id" operation attributes in
    addition
    to the "alternate-target-uri" operation attribute.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
    Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 14:26
    To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; ipp@pwg.org; ifx@pwg.org
    Cc: pwg@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: IFX> Attempt to close on the two Notification specs at the
    fa ce to fac e meetings

    Hi Tom,

    First - I agree that it would still be good to drop redirect from IPPGET
    and design it IN GENERAL for IPP (any operation response could return
    the redirect), including the fact that while it's nice for
    interoperability
    IPP Clients do NOT need to honor and follow redirects (any more than
    HTTP Clients need to do so - it's a matter of client policy).

    Second - if we publish IPPGET as a Proposed Std RFC (as you suggest)
    and LATER add redirect, we MUST recycle at Proposed Std RFC - it's
    illegal to add ANY new features when moving from Proposed Std to
    Draft Std status - only dropping existing features is legal.

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald
      High North Inc

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 10:54 PM
    To: ipp@pwg.org; ifx@pwg.org
    Cc: pwg@pwg.org
    Subject: IFX> Attempt to close on the two Notification specs at the face
    to fac e meetings

    The IPP WG Last Call period closed July 31 on the two IPP Notification
    specs
    that are required for IPP Notification:

    (1) IPP Event Notifications and Subscriptions
    <draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-09.txt>
    (2) The 'ippget' Delivery Method for Event Notifications
    <draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-07.txt>

    and Carl-Uno declared that (1) was approved, since there were no comments
    and that (2) achieved consensus to drop the redirection mechanism entirely
    from the IPPGET document.

    However, we have continued discussion about the merits and problems of the
    redirection mechanism because Harry Lewis has been the main objector to
    removing the redirection mechanism from IPPGET. As a result I have not
    yet
    produced a new version of the document and Carl-Uno has not forwarded
    either
    of the documents to Ned Freed, our Area Director.

    <...snip...>

    Process considerations:

    Could we delete the redirection mechanism for now from IPPGET? Get our
    RFC
    published as a Proposed standard. Implement IPPGET and do
    interoperability
    testing. See if the burden in the Printer of supporting the IPPGET method
    justifies offloading it to a Notification Server using the redirect
    mechanism. If the implementation experience shows that its not much of a
    burden in the Printer we made the right decision to delete redirection. If
    implementation experience shows that having a Notification Server is
    important to off-load the Printer's support of the IPPGET method, then add
    the redirection back into the IPPGET spec before progressing the document
    to
    a Draft standard. Perhaps in the meantime, IBM can also implement the
    Notification Server and see if it is really a win and that the extra
    administrative effort is worth the benefit to simplifying the Printer
    implementation.

    Comments?

    Tom

    <...snip...>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 27 2002 - 14:37:02 EDT