IPP Mail Archive: IPP> Review of Additional Operations - Set 1

IPP Mail Archive: IPP> Review of Additional Operations - Set 1

IPP> Review of Additional Operations - Set 1

Ron Bergman (rbergma@dpc.com)
Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:06:41 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

Tom,

Sorry for the delay of this review. (The document was published after I
left for vacation.)

1. The format of the text version will need some work before it can be
sent to the IETF. It is unfortunate that they cannot accept WORD or
PDF files, but there is not much we can do but generate "clean" text
documents.

2. On page #1, the name of my employer is spelled incorrectly.

3. On page #3, section 1, the first line following the section title just
repeats what has already been stated in the title. This line could be
removed with no loss of content. (minor nit!)

4. In section 2.3 (Restart-Job), the job state is shown in the table as
changing from "processing-stopped" to "processing" and the operation
is rejected. The job state should remain as "processing-stopped".

5. Also in section 2.3 (Restart-Job), I disagree with your discussion
concerning accounting applications. You are making an assumption
that an accounting application will be able to recognize that the job
was restarted if a new set of accounting information is pushed from
the printer. This is not true for any accounting packages that I am
familiar with. When the accounting package receives the data set for
the reprinted job it will most likely do one one of two things; 1) it
will recognize that information has been received for the job and
discard the new data, assuming that this was a duplicate packet or
2) just overwrite the original data. I do not believe that any
accounting package would recognize that the job was reprinted and
act as stated in your text. How would the application know the
difference between a duplicate packet and the scenario that you
proposed? I believe that we agreed in Monterey that the Restart-Job
would not be compatible with accounting applications and that a simple
note similar to the following would be added:

"NOTE: Resetting the job progress attributes should allow a job
monitoring application to function unchanged for a job that has been
restarted. However, since the job-id for the "restarted-job" is
identical to the original job, this operation will most likely be
incompatible with accounting applications. It is recommended that
the Reprocess-Job operation be used when accurated accounting data
is desired."

With these changes incorporated, we should have a document that reflects
the agreements per the Monterey meeting.

Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.