IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> REG - Proposal for "job-reci

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> REG - Proposal for "job-reci

Re: IPP> REG - Proposal for "job-recipient-name" Job Template attribute

From: Michael Sweet (mike@easysw.com)
Date: Thu Sep 21 2000 - 08:44:55 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Sweet: "Re: IPP> REG - Proposal for "job-recipient-name" Job Template attribute"

    "Hastings, Tom N" wrote:
    > ...
    > 3.5 job-message-to-operator (text(MAX))
    > This attribute carries a message from the user to the operator to
    > indicate something about the processing of the print job. A zero
    > length text value indicates no message.

    This is good, however you still need to identify who to send the
    message to, and this essentially limits the scope of things to an

    I know of at least one customer of ours that would like to have a
    way to send/print information to "billing", "sales", "support", etc.
    in addition to an operator. Again, we can fiddle with special
    names for our implementations, but it would really be nice to have
    support for that sort of thing in IPP (so we're not always out on
    the edge... :)

    > ...
    > state. Or maybe an implementation displays a message to the
    > operator whenever a job is created with a "job-message-to-operator"
    > supplied.

    This is the sticky part - we'll want to provide a "group"
    subscription service based on the recipient, so that an end-user
    can subscribe for notifications when a new job is received for
    "xyz", whether that "xyz" corresponds to the authenticated user
    name or not. [In our implementation we'll probably require an
    admin user for arbitrary subscriptions, or a user that is a
    member of the named group]

    > ...
    > Michael,
    > Were you aware of these two extension attribute proposals? They
    > have been in the PWG IPP FTP site for the past year waiting to get
    > reviewed. They were finally reviewed last week at the IPP WG
    > meeting. However, some of these attributes, such as the ones
    > listed above, are clearly not limited to use in Production
    > Printing. Are we making a mistake hiding them in a PWG
    > Production Printing specification?

    I looked at the PPS quite a while ago, and haven't had the chance to
    go back to it since I've been perusing the notification documents.

    That said, I think you are correct that some of the attributes
    defined in the PPS should be defined in a separate document since
    they will have applications beyond production printing.

    I'll try to go through the PPS today and post some comments to the

    Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products                  mike@easysw.com
    Printing Software for UNIX                       http://www.easysw.com

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 09:13:39 EDT