IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> ippget Spec Changes

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> ippget Spec Changes

RE: IPP> ippget Spec Changes

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Thu Jul 12 2001 - 18:03:41 EDT

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "RE: IPP> ippget Spec Changes [substantive clarification about eve nt order]"

    Marty,

    I'll make these editorial changes, as I'm editing the document to
    incorporate the comments of our Area Director, Ned Freed. However, one of
    your comments is more than editorial. See my comments below, preceded by
    TH>.

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: mjoel@netreon.com [mailto:mjoel@netreon.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 18:27
    To: ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: IPP> ippget Spec Changes

    If any changes are going to be made to the ippget spec, perhaps these typos
    can be fixed:

    In 5.2, the Group 3 through N section, last sentence of the first paragraph
    has "the Printer the subsequent".

    TH> So I've changed the sentence from:

    If the Notification Recipient has selected the option to wait for additional
    Event Notifications, the Printer the subsequent Event Notifications in the
    response are Event Notifications associated with the matched Subscription
    Objects as the corresponding Event occurs.

    to:

    If the Notification Recipient has selected the option to wait for additional
    Event Notifications, the Printer sends subsequent Event Notifications in the
    response as Event Notifications associated with the matched Subscription
    Objects as the corresponding Event occurs.

    TH> OK?

    In the same section, the first sentence of the second paragraph has "one
    Event Notification Attributes Groups" which should be singular.

    TH> Ok.

    That section doesn't say the events must be in any order, but it also
    doesn't say they may be in any order, which would match the detail of the
    other specs.

    TH> Here I think you have stumbled into an issue for all the Delivery
    Methods about the order of delivery of events.

    TH> The Send-Notifications Request in the INDP Delivery Method says the
    following for Groups 2 to N:

    In each group 2 to N, each attribute is encoded using the IPP rules for
    encoding attributes [RFC2910] and may be encoded in any order.

    TH> I think that the "any order" refers to the attributes within a group,
    not the order of the groups, though the antecedent to "may be encoded in any
    order" is ambiguous.

    TH> The Get-Notifications Response in the IPPGET Delivery Method says the
    following for Groups 3 to N in the 4th paragraph:

    Each attribute is encoded using the IPP rules for encoding attributes
    [RFC2910] and may be encoded in any order. Note: the Get-Jobs response in
    [RFC2911] acts as a model for encoding multiple groups of attributes.

    TH> Here it is clear that the "any order" is referring to attributes within
    a group, not the order of groups.

    TH> I talked with Bob Herriot and the assumption was that Printer MUST
    deliver the events in time stamp order and "notify-sequence-number" order
    (which are kept per Subscription object), at least within a single Compound
    Event Notification, such as in IPPGET and INDP. So OK to make at least that
    clarification for the Events in group 2 to N in IPPGET Get-Notifications
    Response and INDP Send-Notifications Request?

    TH> It gets trickier to require that the Printer actually delivery events in
    time stamp order for separate Get-Notifications or separate
    Send-Notifications, because some Printers will deliver events by
    Subscription object and others will deliver events by Event.

    TH> Comments?

    TH> Tom

    Regards,

    Marty Joel



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 12 2001 - 18:05:35 EDT