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: Wed Aug 16 2000 - 12:23:21 EDT

  • Next message: Zehler, Peter: "RE: IPP> ADM - IPP Phone Conference - 000816"

    Hi Harry and Jay,

    I agree with MOST of Harry's points below - as I
    never attended any of the PWG monthly meetings
    (which, for a variety of procedural reasons are
    NOT qualified as official meetings of the IETF IPP WG)
    I wasn't around for this elusive decision to force
    machine-readable out of email notifications.

    The utility of machine-readable has NO RELATIONSHIP
    to whether notification is real-time or store/forward.
    There is MUCH more usable content in machine-readable
    for any client application. Doing printer-side
    localization of more attributes in the human-readable
    encoding just worsens interoperability. We (IPP WG)
    don't standardize the translations of the thousands
    of attribute names and attribute keyword and enum
    tag values, do we?

    For what it's worth, I've got several implementation
    teams interested in IPP notifications via SNMP using
    the Job Mon MIB and all of them want to do email.
    I haven't got any implementors interested in INDP,
    because it causes so many headaches with security
    policies on customer sites.

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 8:01 AM
    To: jkm@underscore.com
    Cc: imcdonald@sharplabs.com; ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: Re: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM -
    The IPP Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)

    Jay asked for discussion.

    1. This is a VERY old topic.
    2. I thought we agreed LONG ago the e-mail notification was for human
    readable (only)
    3. I thought we agreed LONG ago that real time notification to a client or
    "notification manager" application (i.e. machine readable) is desirable
    4. I've argued (and proposed) a LONG time ago that, fundamentally, we need
    a simple, NATIVE machine readable method (i.e. works using the exact same
    infrastructure, no more, no less, as IPP).
    5. Several additional machine readable methods have been proposed (INDP,
    SNMP, ...).
    6. As diversity and choice are great in many context but not so great in
    "standards"... a litany of events, discussions, meetings, phone calls and
    e-mail have resulted in INDP as the recommended machine readable protocol.

    We currently just the Job MIB with SNMP notification (private - as the JMP
    team would not allow the definition of Job Traps... now they are defined
    for IPP... Odd!). Works fine. Yes, it's shown to be useful and desirable
    when facilitating rich end-user job progress and status information.

    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 16 2000 - 12:36:03 EDT