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

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

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

PETER_E_MELLQUIST@hp-roseville-om3.om.hp.com
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 19:19:23 -0700

--openmail-part-1519c106-00000001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="BDY.TXT"
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

IPP is not a management / Administrative Protocol. If you want management, then
use a management protocol. Just because you can do something within IPP does
not mean you should.

"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."

Peter Mellquist
Hewlett-Packard Company

-----Original Message-----
From: Non-HP-HPARRA /HP-Roseville,mimegw4/dd.HPMEXT1=HPARRA@novell.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 10:38 AM
To: Non-HP-hastings
/HP-Roseville,mimegw4/dd.HPMEXT1=hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com; Non-HP-ipp
/HP-Roseville,mimegw4/dd.HPMEXT1=ipp@pwg.org; Non-HP-kugler
/HP-Roseville,mimegw4/dd.HPMEXT1=kugler@us.ibm.com
Cc: Non-HP-HPARRA /HP-Roseville,mimegw4/dd.HPMEXT1=HPARRA@novell.com
Subject: RE: IPP> MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations
registration pr

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]
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

<< File: RE_ IPP_ MOD - comments on Carl's Set and Admin operations
registration pr.TXT >>
--openmail-part-1519c106-00000001--