IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification a

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification a

RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

From: Wagner,William (bwagner@digprod.com)
Date: Wed Jun 21 2000 - 10:34:50 EDT

  • Next message: Carl-Uno Manros: "RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement"

     I too evidentially left the New York meeting a few minutes too early (to
    catch a flight that was cancelled). I would have opposed INDP as the
    mandatory notification and believe that, for true internet operation, Mail
    To is the only reasonable choice. So if it is to be decided on the list, my
    vote is for mail to.

    Of course, the only vote that counts is the customers. Is IPP a readily
    usable service that provides for internet print job delivery and appropriate
    notification with a minimum of special code and dealing with the IS
    department?

    William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
    Director of Technology
    Imaging Division
    NETsilicon, Inc.
    781-398-4588

    -----Original Message-----
    From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 8:54 AM
    To: henrik.holst@i-data.com
    Cc: ipp@pwg.org; peter.ultved@i-data.com
    Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

    Henrik:

    Perhaps you had left at that point but a vote was taken and INDP was
    selected as
    the mandatory noticification method pending finalization through discussion
    on
    the e-mail list.

    As far as firewalls are concerned, passing or not passing through them is
    actually irrelevant but ...... it can be enabled as desired because we plan
    for
    INDP to be on a specific port.

    **********************************************
    * Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
    * Chair, Printer Working Group *
    * Chair, IEEE MSC *
    * *
    * Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances *
    * Lexmark International *
    * 740 New Circle Rd *
    * Lexington, Ky 40550 *
    * 859-232-4808 (phone) 859-232-6740 (fax) *
    * (Former area code 606 works until 10/1) *
    **********************************************

    henrik.holst%i-data.com@interlock.lexmark.com on 06/21/2000 03:52:40 AM

    To: ipp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com,
          peter.ultved%i-data.com@interlock.lexmark.com
    cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
    Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

    Well it was my understanding that we didn't agree on a mandatory method.
    And the INDP method
    won't go through a firewall, so if you are searching for a mandatory method
    I would say MAILTO.

    Henrik

    "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com>@pwg.org on 20-06-2000 17:43:51

    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org

    To: "IPP Discussion List (E-mail)" <IPP@pwg.org>
    cc:

    Subject: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

    All,

    I am working the content planning for the IPP Bake-Off. I want to be sure
    that there is PWG wide agreement on the notification issue.

    It is my understanding that INDP is the mandated IPP notification method.
    There were some minor updates that have been agreed to and we are awaiting
    the final version of the document for PWG last call. The minor changes are
    documented in the meeting minutes from May meeting of the PWG. This
    upcoming INDP document will be the document that the notification section
    of
    the Bake-Off will use as a base.

    Is this correct or did I misunderstand?

    Pete

                        Peter Zehler
                        XEROX
                        Xerox Architecture Center
                        Email: Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com
                        Voice: (716) 265-8755
                        FAX: (716) 265-8792
                        US Mail: Peter Zehler
                                Xerox Corp.
                                800 Phillips Rd.
                                M/S 139-05A
                                Webster NY, 14580-9701



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 21 2000 - 10:43:01 EDT