IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> IPP Bake-Off 3 issue 4

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> IPP Bake-Off 3 issue 4

Re: IPP> IPP Bake-Off 3 issue 4

From: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM (kugler@us.ibm.com)
Date: Fri Oct 27 2000 - 16:43:52 EDT

  • Next message: Herriot, Robert: "RE: IPP> Reopen IPP Bake-off decision for authentication"

    "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler@u...> wrote:
    > All,
    > BO3-4: For get-printer-attributes operation submitted with an unsupported
    > "requested-attributes" value what is the return code and should an
    > unsupported attributes group be returned containing the
    > attribute and the unsupported value. There are four possibilities of
    > code and unsupported attribute:
    > A) successful-ok/no attributes
    > B) successful-ok/unsupported requested-attributes returned
    > C) Successful-attribute-or-value-ignored/ no attributes
    > D) Successful-attribute-or-value-ignored/ unsupported
    > requested-attributes returned
    > The standard currently allows A, C, D. Should the standard
    > be relaxed to include C.
    I'm not sure I follow you here!

    Looks to me like the spec currently allows only C or D:
    <<<<< client-error-attributes-or-values-not-supported (0x040B)
    For any operation where a client requests attributes (such as a Get-Jobs,
    Get-Printer-Attributes, or Get-Job-Attributes operation), if the IPP object
    does not support one or more of the requested attributes, the IPP object
    simply ignores the unsupported requested attributes and processes the
    request as if they had not been supplied, rather than returning this status
    code. In this case, the IPP object MUST return the
    'successful-ok-ignored-or-substituted-attributes' status code and MAY
    return the unsupported attributes as values of the "requested-attributes"
    in the Unsupported Attributes Group (see section
    Choice D would simplify the spec, since there wouldn't need to be any
    special exception for "requested-attributes"; it would be treated the same
    as any other attribute. However, "requested-attributes" seems to be
    confusing to implement, since I have seen implementations all over the map
    on this. I have even seen some imaginative responses that don't fall into
    any of the above possibilities (but not at the bakeoff). Maybe we should
    settle on D, the simplest one to specify, then put a big chapter in the
    Implementer's Guide explaining the details.


    > The implementations at the Bake-Off supported were
    > A-11, B-1, C-3, D-0
    > Proposed Resolution: Allow all combinations

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 27 2000 - 16:53:51 EDT