IPP Mail Archive: IPP> Comments on New Notifications Specifi

IPP Mail Archive: IPP> Comments on New Notifications Specifi

IPP> Comments on New Notifications Specification

From: Ron Bergman (rbergma@hitachi-hkis.com)
Date: Mon May 08 2000 - 21:02:37 EDT

  • Next message: henrik.holst@i-data.com: "Re: IPP> FW: Job MIB Bake Off and Status"

    The latest proposal certainly resolves the packet size problem,
    but it seems that we are still missing some key points that were
    uncovered in Ira's exercise to create an SNMP mapping. To me
    Ira's SNMP document highlighted three problem areas:

    1. Some transports have size limitations that prevent the entire
       set of notifcation content attributes to be included.

    2. Some of the required attributes are meaningless when using
       other transports. For example, SNMP traps do not have any
       need for "version-number", "attributes-charset", or
       "attributes-natural-language".

    3. The format of some of the required attributes may be better
       presented in a different manner in some transports. Again,
       in SNMP traps the "status-code" and "request-id" are quite
       different than would be in an IPP message.

    I believe that it is a mistake to try to define a mandatory set
    of attributes that is applicable to all transports. I would prefer
    to see the Notifications Specification provide a list of possible
    attributes and then each "Method" specification fully define the
    required attributes. This will allow those transports that can
    easily handle large packets to always have the same attribute
    content. This should be much easier for IPP servers to
    implement.

    Notification clients will then always know what attributes will
    be returned and will never have to query the printer to determine
    what optional attributes are supported and then request those
    it needs. This would seem to simplify both clients and servers.

    This could make the specification task more difficult (but it is
    hard to believe it could be more difficult than it already has
    been). We will have to specifiy a mandatory "Method" that
    can provide all possible attributes and then carefully define
    all those that have limitations to provide the proper subsets.

        Ron Bergman
        Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 08 2000 - 20:57:44 EDT