IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> notification methods

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> notification methods

Re: IPP> notification methods

From: harryl@us.ibm.com
Date: Wed Jul 26 2000 - 10:54:23 EDT

  • Next message: don@lexmark.com: "Re: IPP> notification methods"

    I accept that INDP may "work" in the Internet if properly configured. But,
    in this case, you wouldn't necessarily need to mandate mailto for human
    readable. So either association (mail/human - indp/machine OR mail/inter
    - indp/intra) is equally flawed.

    Then... the only thing certain is that mailto is NOT intended for machine
    readable. Why don't we just state that?

    Peter Z. has a suggestion for helping to determine what is supported.
    > a notification... sent out at INDP registration... (that) allows a...
    > recipient to determine if the infrastructure supports INDP...

    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

    don@lexmark.com
    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    07/26/2000 05:01 AM

            To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
            cc: pmoore@peerless.com, ipp@pwg.org
            Subject: Re: IPP> notification methods

    I fail to see the reason to ASSUME that every implementation of IPP
    NOTIFICATION
    will occur behind a firewall that is NOT configured to allow INDP
    notifications
    to pass through it. Any attempt to associate "mailto" or "indp"
    EXCLUSIVELY
    with either INTERnets or INTRAnets is flawed. If we would have used this
    argument for IPP in the beginning we would have made statements like:

    1. If a device is configured to print across the Internet it IS OUT OF
    LUCK.
    2. If a device is configured to print in the context of an Intranet it
    MUST
    support IPP.

    Let's separate the issue of the INTERNET vs INTRANET context of these
    delivery
    services. When a customer decides they want these services, they will
    configure
    their firewalls (if present) to make it happen.

    **********************************************
    * 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 until 10/1 was 606) *
    **********************************************

    harryl%us.ibm.com@interlock.lexmark.com on 07/26/2000 01:00:41 AM

    To: pmoore%peerless.com@interlock.lexmark.com
    cc: ipp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
    Subject: Re: IPP> notification methods

    I feel a more accurate way of looking at it is:

    1. If a device is configured to provide event notification across the
    Internet it MUST support mailto
    2. If a device is configured to provide event notification in the context
    of an Intranet it SHOULD support INDP

    We could live with the proposal to bind human/mail vs. machine/indp.
    However, this ignores the fact that INDP also handles human readable.

    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

    pmoore@peerless.com
    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    07/20/2000 09:31 AM

            To: ipp@pwg.org
            cc:
            Subject: IPP> notification methods

    Following the SF meeting I would like to formally propose the following.

    1. If a device wants to expose human readable events then it MUST support
    the
    mailto method

    2. If a device wants to expose machine readable events then it MUST
    support the
    INDP method

    But we do not UNCONDITIONALLY require either.

    (Now dons flame-proof clothing and awaits flaming)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 26 2000 - 11:06:49 EDT