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.
- Ira McDonald
From: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 8:01 AM
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.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
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,
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.
IBM Printing Systems
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 16 2000 - 12:36:03 EDT