IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> notification methods

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> notification methods

Re: IPP> notification methods

From: pmoore@peerless.com
Date: Fri Jul 21 2000 - 12:20:54 EDT

  • Next message: Vinod P N : "IPP> Query on set operations"

    So are we agreed that mandating a machine readable form is needed - Yes? I mean
    that if a device does a machine readble method it MUST do at least INDP.

    Michael Sweet <mike@easysw.com> on 07/21/2000 08:48:58 AM

    To: pmoore@peerless.com
    cc: ipp@pwg.org (bcc: Paul Moore/AUCO/US)

    Subject: Re: IPP> notification methods

    pmoore@peerless.com wrote:
    >
    > 1.mailto and indp are used by clients for totally different
    > purposes - you can do things with indp that you absolutely cannot
    > do with mailto and vice versa. They are not overlapping they are
    > complimentary. Therefore there is no bloat issue as such

    I didn't say mailto and indp would cause bloat - in fact I agree
    with you.

    However, if the PWG does not mandate one or more required methods
    then a client will be required to support them *all*, which will
    cause bloat. Requiring a minimum level of notification support
    (including one or two required methods) will prevent this from
    happening.

    > ...
    > 3. I am surprised that CUPS would want to use mailto from the
    > actual printer back to the cups end user. I would have thought

    Nope, that's not what we would do.

    For our IPP backend we'd probably use indp or polling.

    > ...
    > 4. even if we mandate mailto, not all printers will support it. In
    > order for it to work the printer must have its SMTP gateway
    > configured by somebody. In some cases this will not have been done
    > so the mailto method wont work - interesting question about how a
    > printer should deal with this case. Presumably it must not say it
    > can do mailto - or perhaps it will accept the requests and throw
    > them away. Clients will always have to be smart.

    This is an interesting point - it would be easy to return an error
    from a create-subscription operation, but what would we return from
    a print-job or create-job?

    > ...
    > 7.Mandating a method does not gurantee interop. THe two methods do
    > totally different things. If my client needs machine readable
    > notifications (for example I have a rendering pipeline driven by
    > page complete messages) then telling me that mailto is available
    > does nothing to help me. Its like saying "we have mandated SMTP why
    > the heck do you want to do HTTP" - they do different things.

    I'm not suggesting that mandating email alone will be sufficient;
    likely we need to mandate at least one machine-readable method as
    well. However, in practical terms email is the method that will
    gain IPP the most visibility and acceptance, with the other
    methods being supported as demand grows.

    --
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products                  mike@easysw.com
    Printing Software for UNIX                       http://www.easysw.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 21 2000 - 12:30:57 EDT