IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeti

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeti

RE: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - The IPP Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:51:59 EDT

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "RE: IPP> TES - Bake-Off Phone conference"

    Hi,

    Jay in his note below and many of the readers on
    this list keep confusing and conflating 'real-time'
    and 'machine-readable'. There is NO relationship.

    A client could want 'human-readable' status messages
    in near 'real-time' (and SNMP print clients get
    them every day today from private MIBs).

    A client could want store and forward 'machine-readable'
    notifications - invoking a reader that's generic
    across ALL client-side browsers, email readers, etc.
    on a given client operating system, similar to
    to Adobe Acrobat Reader - because that client COULD
    NOT get the near 'real-time' notification via INDP
    due to corporate security policies.

    Carl Kugler made the excellent point (adroitly ignored
    by others in replying) that typical corporate security
    policies completely prohibit HTTP Server side code
    in any system that doesn't meet the corporate definition
    of 'bastion host'. Let me be clear - in such an
    environment (the most common situation in mid-sized
    and large corporations worldwide) it is impossible
    for INDP to operate at all. And 'mailto:' is the
    sole RECOMMENDED alternative according to IPP folks.
    Of course, they could use Job Mon traps via SNMP...

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox and Sharp
      High North Inc

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Jay Martin [mailto:jkm@underscore.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 11:58 AM
    To: Herriot, Robert
    Cc: IETF-IPP
    Subject: Re: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM -
    The IPP Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)

    Bob,

    > From: pmoore@peerless.com [mailto:pmoore@peerless.com]
    > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 2:55 PM
    >
    > First - we all agreed not to do it. This seems like a good reason not to
    do
    > it.
    >
    > [rgh reply]
    > I concur that at the last meeting we did agree not to have a Machine
    > Consumable format in 'mailto'. However, earlier this year we were going in
    > the opposite direction and tried to get a Machine Consumable format to
    work
    > in 'mailto'. We seemed to give up because the solutions were too complex.
    >
    > When I discovered this simple solution, I thought it would be good to find
    > out if PWG member are opposed to a Machine Consumable format regardless of
    > the solution or are opposed only to complex solutions.

    With all due respect, might I suggest you go back and read the *rest* of
    Paul Moore's response and address the many other concerns he so clearly
    stated. (I've attached Paul's msg for your convenience.)

    IMHO, Paul asks the best question of all:

    > Again I ask what the purpose is? Is the idea to enrich the end user
    experience
    > or is it an attempt to overcome the 'INDP wont go through a firewall'
    issue.

    Why do you feel we need machine-readable components in an email msg?

    I know for a fact that I am not alone in being totally confused about
    the real-world requirements for dynamic/binary data vs. simple textual
    email for printing notifications. Why would anyone would *demand*
    relatively
    real-time notifications for print jobs outside of a firewall, anyway?
    (God only knows such a person would never PAY for software that does this,
    right? ;-)

            ...jay



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 22:11:12 EDT