IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> machine readable etc. - why Harry

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> machine readable etc. - why Harry

Re: IPP> machine readable etc. - why Harry is right

From: pmoore@peerless.com
Date: Thu Aug 17 2000 - 15:37:58 EDT

  • Next message: Manros, Carl-Uno B: "RE: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - TheI PPNotification I-Ds will now go the IESG)]"

    THere is no reason why the ipp-get mechanism cant be put forward as a free
    standing extension that doesnt come under the notification umbrella. Its not
    really like all the other notifications methods. If its useful, its useful.

    Jay Martin <jkm@underscore.com> on 08/17/2000 11:28:41 AM

    Please respond to jkm@underscore.com

    To: "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>
    cc: "Wagner,William" <bwagner@digprod.com>, ipp@pwg.org (bcc: Paul

    Subject: Re: IPP> machine readable etc. - why Harry is right


    > CM> We DO have a requirements documents where this is all documented,
    > but to save you the time to read that, the main reasons for multiple
    > notification recipients are:
    > 1) when you send a document to a different location, you want to notify
    > the person who is supposed to pick up the document that it has been
    > printed, in addition to yourself.
    > 2) when you send a print job from home or a hotel room to your printer
    > in the office, you may want to notify your secretary or admin to
    > pick it up from the printer when ready, again in addition to yourself.

    Excellent summary. Thanks so much for your patience. Quite
    digestable, ready for marketing collateral copy.

    > (Have you ever seen a customer choke when you hand them a copy
    > of the IPP spec? It's not a pretty sight, I assure you. ;-)
    > CM> You are quite right. Who is volunteering to write the "IPP for Dummies"
    > book?

    I would, if I can get my philosophical angles more in line with
    the current state of IPP. Hence my participation on this thread.

    <SOAPBOX-FLAME level="kinda fierce" audience="longtime-PWG-members">

    As some folks know, I have more than a bit of experience in
    near-real-time, scalable event notification systems. Quite
    honestly, a lot of the basis/design of IPP notifications is
    less than tasty. (Trying to be tactful here, bear with me.)

    So why didn't I involve myself more in the IPP Notification
    effort all along, and why wait until now to make these comments
    and observations? Truthfully, because the same old Usual
    Suspects have made me feel like their input and direction
    are the only "viable" positions in the printer industry,
    since they come from large, well-established companies.
    When I finally seem to make a point (that's against their
    pet position), they merely wait a while, brush me and my
    proponents aside, and continue their pet position...no matter
    how long it will take to "get consensus".

    I like to call that kind of approach "getting attrition",
    since sooner or later, those of us who do more than write
    standards for a living have to get on with the job at hand.


    Sorry, you've touched a nerve, Carl-Uno. For the record,
    I don't consider you one of the Usual Suspects. ;-)


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 17 2000 - 15:53:40 EDT