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

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

Hugo Parra (HPARRA@novell.com)
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:38:15 -0600

Before we drop this issue, I'm with Tom in that from time to time =
administrators find it very useful to be able to rename a printer. Our =
utilities give them all kinds of warnings as to the possible ramifications =
of doing so and then let them choose whether or not to carry on with the =
change. If it's just a whim, they usually back off, but sometimes they =
must do the change for important reasons such as, the company just adopted =
a new naming convention, they're merging two or more Organizational Units =
and must eliminate duplicate names, they're trying to integrate/gateway to =
a system that doesn't support characters in their current names, etc. My =
vote is that rename be allowed.

-Hugo

>>> "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> 06/23/99 11:00AM >>>
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]=20
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 15:29
To: ipp@pwg.org=20
Cc: hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com=20
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