Tom,
Considering the deadline for drafts into the next IETF meeting, I would
prefer to the get the IETF drafts done first.
Carl-Uno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Hastings,
> Tom N
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:43 AM
> To: ipp (E-mail); IPP FAX DL (E-mail)
> Subject: IPP> REMINDER: IPP/IPPFAX telecon: IPPGET, Fri, Nov 2 and 9,
> 1-3PM EST (10-12 PS T)
>
>
> Reminder of our IPPGET telecon today, in a little more than an hour.
>
> If we finish IPPGET, we can discuss John Pulera's updated UIF spec (see
> announcement attached at the end).
>
> Also it is more important to update the IFX spec for next Friday's (11/9)
> telecon or update the IPPGET and possibly the IPP Notification spec?
>
> I'll try to get these all done next week, but which should come first?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 12:33
> To: ipp (E-mail); IPP FAX DL (E-mail)
> Subject: IFX> IPP/IPPFAX telecon: IPPGET, Fri, Nov 2 and 9, 1-3PM EST
> (10-12 PS T)
>
>
> Since IPPGET is also an IPP Event Notification Delivery method,
> the first of
> the two telecons is for IPP and IPPFAX WG folks:
>
> Friday, Nov 2 and 9, 10-12 AM PDT (1-3 PM EDT)
> Phone: 1(712) 884-1555, (Xerox folks: 8*596-5170), passcode: 654970
>
> The agenda for Friday, Nov 2, will be the IPPGET Event
> Notification Delivery
> Method. We'll decide at the end of that telecon what the agenda
> will be for
> the next telecon the following Friday (November 9).
>
> The IPPFAX WG spent most of the meeting last week (10/24) on the IPPFAX
> Protocol document and finished reviewing it. We discussed the
> changes that
> John had made to the UIF document, but did not review those changes
> thoroughly. We did not address the IPP IPPGET Event Delivery Method
> document at all. We agreed to have two telecons, to address IPPGET and
> updated UIF and IPPFAX Protocol documents as well.
>
> Here is the mail that I sent out before the IPP FAX WG meeting.
> Since then
> there has been a lot of good email discussion about resolving issues 1 and
> 2.
>
> We did discuss ISSUE 01 (adding Event Wait Mode) to Job Creation
> operations
> at the meeting. The sentiment was against. I'll send out a
> separate email
> message on that discussion.
>
> The current favored resolution to ISSUE 02 (IPPGET URL) on the DL would
> probably best require editing the IPP Event Notification Spec
> itself (which
> is still in the IESG queue) to add the "notify-put-method" (type2 keyword)
> Subscription Template attribute for pull methods which goes along with the
> "notify-recipient-uri" (uri) Subscription Template attribute for push
> methods. A Subscription object MUST have one or the other, but not both.
>
> Please send any comments on the agenda or the issues to both DLs.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 03:37
> To: ipp (E-mail); IPP FAX DL (E-mail)
> Subject: IFX> NOT - IPPGET Delivery Method down-loaded - REQUIRED for
> IPPFAX
>
>
> I've posted the updated IPPGET Event Notification Delivery Method that is
> REQUIRED for IPPFAX:
>
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_NOT/ipp-notify-get-011017.pdf
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_NOT/ipp-notify-get-011017.doc
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_NOT/ipp-notify-get-011017-rev.pdf
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_NOT/ipp-notify-get-011017-rev.doc
>
> The -rev version show the revisions since the July 17, 2001 version.
>
> It has all of the agreements reached at the August 1, IPP FAX meeting in
> Toronto and the subsequent 3 telecon, August 11, 14, and 17. See the
> telecon and meeting notes for the list of the changes.
>
> I'll send a .txt I-D later Friday. Please send any comments to
> the mailing
> list. We'll also review at the IPPFAX WG meeting, next Wednesday, October
> 24 in San Antonio.
>
> There are two issues:
>
> ISSUE 01: Although we agreed to extend Job Creation operations to
> support Event Wait Mode, it seems to be an unnecessary complication, since
> the Printer MUST keep events for at least 15 seconds. So OK NOT
> to add the
> "notify-wait" (boolean) operation attribute to Job Creation operations and
> NOT have to have Job Creation responses return Event Notification
> Groups (in
> addition to returning Subscription Attribute Groups).
>
> ISSUE 02: How unique do we need the "notify-recipient-uri" (uri)
> URL now that the Printer doesn't use anything but the scheme in the URL to
> match on?
>
> Here are the major changes:
>
> 1. Removed the "notify-recipients-uri" operation attribute from
> Get-Notifications, so no URI matching.
>
> 2. Changed "notify-subscription-id" (integer(1:MAX)) to
> "notify-subscription-ids" (1setOf integer(1:MAX)); the client MUST supply
> with at least one value. Printer MUST support multiple-values.
>
> 3. Added "notify-sequence-numbers" (1setOf integer(1:MAX)) to be parallel
> and be a floor to the Event Notifications sequence numbers returned. The
> client SHOULD supply. Printer MUST support multiple-values.
>
> 4. In Event Wait Mode, each response is a full IPP response.
>
> 5. Moved "notify-get-interval" back to the operations attributes group in
> the response.
>
> 6. Added 'successful-ok-events-complete to indicate that there will be no
> more events for this Subscription object.
>
> 7. The Printer MUST support Event Wait Mode.
>
> 8. The client can end Event Wait Mode (without closing the connection) by
> sending "notify-wait" = 'false' any time. The Printer can end Event Wait
> Mode (without closing the connection) by returning "notify-get-internal"
> operation attribute any time (including immediately).
>
> 9. Changed the lower limit for "ippget-event-life" from 1 to 15
> seconds and
> recommend 60 seconds to agree with the PWG Job Monitoring MIB (RFC 2707).
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Pulera [mailto:jpulera@minolta-mil.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 16:55
> To: IPP-Fax Group
> Subject: IFX> UIF spec has been updated: 'uif-spec-08'
>
>
> I've updated the UIF spec to contain modifications suggested by
> Tom Hastings
> and Robert Buckley since the last IPP-FAX face-to-face.
>
> changes from version 0.7 to 0.8 noted:
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/uif-spec-08-rev.doc
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/uif-spec-08-rev.pdf
>
> clean:
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/uif-spec-08.doc
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/uif-spec-08.pdf
>
> There is still one outstanding issue:
> -- Is it still OK for a Sender to describe UIF Profile S or F TIFF data
> using the "image/tiff" MIME subtype since UIF Profile S relies on several
> TIFF-FX extensions which require the use of two TIFF fields not recognized
> by TIFF 6 (namely, the GlobalParametersIFD and TIFF-FXExtensions fields)
>
>
>
> John Pulera
>
> ------------------------------------
> John Pulera
> jpulera@minolta-mil.com
> Minolta Systems Laboratory
> 111 Innovation Dr., Ste 200
> Irvine, CA 92612
> (949)737-4520 x348
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 02 2001 - 13:01:58 EST