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: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM (kugler@us.ibm.com)
Date: Wed Aug 23 2000 - 12:20:59 EDT

  • Next message: Herriot, Robert: "RE: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - The IPPNotification I-Ds will now go the IESG)]"

     "Herriot, Robert" <Robert.Herriot@pahv.xerox.com> wrote:
    >> - I think you still need "suggested-ask-again-time-interval" and
    >> "begin-to-expire-time-interval" to handle the case of really long idle
    >> times; for example, when subscribing for Job notifications
    >> on a Job with
    >> "job-hold-until" specified.
    >Perhaps this case can be ignored. I was hoping to avoid this complexity, and
    >I'm not sure if a Printer would want to guarantee to hold on to all Event
    >Notifications for several hours. Suppose at noon, someone sets
    >"job-hold-until" to 'night' and then at 4pm changes it to 'evening' or
    >'no-hold'. If the Printer has told the client to query again at the
    >beginning of the 'night' shift or even several hours before night shift, the
    >Job may have completed with many Event Notifications by then.

    Seems reasonable. Best to keep it simple. If you're submitting a job with
    "job-hold-until" you'd be well advised to use a notification different
    delivery method like email. But we probably need some way to "expire"
    undelivered notifications, so they don't build up indefinitely if clients
    go away. Could be a simple, specified maximum guaranteed retention time
    for undelivered notifications, or an attribute (settable or not).


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 23 2000 - 12:29:58 EDT