IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations regist

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations regist

RE: IPP> MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations regist

Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:00:42 -0700

So should we change this from a MUST to a SHOULD or a MAY?

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: kugler@us.ibm.com [mailto:kugler@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 15:29
To: ipp@pwg.org
Cc: hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com
Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations
registration pr

> +----------------------------+---+
> | printer-name | S | MUST
> TH31> Why not allow this to be set. Its the administratively set name.
> +----------------------------+---+

I think we have to be careful about putting too many MUSTs on the
implementations. In our case, we can't (practically) change the
"printer-name"
after the Printer has been created (the "printer-name" is used as an
identifier
by other, non-IPP, parts of the system). If this becomes a MUST, then we're
faced with some unpleasant alternatives:

1) Try to work around the problem; fake "printer-name" somehow
2) Don't support the "printer-name" attribute (Oops! Its REQUIRED.)
3) Don't support the Set-Printer-Attributes operation, even though we
could
set many of the other printer attributes.

I don't think this is a unique situation.

-Carl