Ira,
Thanks for summarizing the agreements and the next steps.
Correct me if I mis-understood, but I think we agreed today to move the
Close-Job operation out of the Job Extensions spec and into the futures spec
where it would be OPTIONAL. Possibly, when we do IPP/1.2, we might make
Close-Job REQUIRED (or we might reference Close-Job as OPTIONAL or we might
not reference Close-Job at all).
(And the Create-Document and Send-Data operations were already removed from
the Document Object spec and aren't in the Job Extensions spec).
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 15:43
To: 'Michael Sweet'; Hastings, Tom N
Cc: Dennis Carney; ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> Document Object Spec Comments... [Validate-Job for
each document vs. Create-Document/Send-Data]
Hi Michael,
We also agreed at today's SM telecon to remove the Create-Document
and Send-Data operations entirely from the JobX spec. They can
be added in some future IPP/1.2, if someone wants them. Also we
agreed to remove entirely the new Close-Job operation.
Although Close-Job is a good idea (a PSI idea), it's not useful
if it's not REQUIRED and if the previous RFC 2911 last-document
or empty document with Send-Document are not deprecated. We're
not ready to rock the boat and change RFC 2911 behavior.
Thanks for all your good feedback.
Pete Zehler will be posting _one_ more revised IPP Document object
shortly. After that, all review will be by email through and including
the Portland face-to-face coming up in mid-June.
Next week at the SM telecon, we'll review the new Overrides spec
(replaces the Experimental PWG 5100.4 when adopted).
Next week at the IPPFAX telecon, we'll review the new JobX spec
(the useful operations, without the Document object itself).
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 22 2003 - 20:02:53 EDT