Subject: IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements

From: [email-masked] (Robert Herriot)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 18:07:29 -0800

The document looks good. Here are some corrections:

page 8:  Change your correction to have more parallel language, e.g.:

 This can be done as follows:
   - the end-user selects the correct printer driver
   - the printer automatically selects the proper interpreter
   - the end-user uses some other manual procedure

page 20: section 8.8
 Shouldn't the response be labeled: "Print job rejected"  It is not the
   case that the synchronous response would say "print job accepted - printing
   failed".

page 37: section 8.14.

  I think we agreed that the last request "Here is last part of the document to
   print" and response would be deleted and replaced with words saying that the job
   resumed printing.

---

From: Don Wright <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Mar 97 8:21:14 EST

>   - the end-user uses some other manual procedure

Sounds good!

>   case that the synchronous response would say "print job accepted - printing

OK

>   print" and response would be deleted and replaced with words saying that 
the job

I struggled with this one because in the scenario the printer is not capable of 
spooling.  I think this case simply indicates that an error occurred while there
was still data to be sent to this printer and once the problem was fixed, 
printing
resumed and more print data was sent.  The cases we discussed where 
there was language like this were all chunking cases.This is not a chunking 
case but rather a non-spooling printer case.  I think I should leave it as it 
stands.  

Don

---

From: Roger K Debry <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:17:17 -0500

Classification:
Prologue:
Epilogue: Roger K deBry
Senior Techncial Staff Member
Architecture and Technology
IBM Printing Systems
email: [email-masked]
phone: 1-303-924-4080

---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 03/19/97 07:05
AM ---------------------------

        ipp-owner @ pwg.org
        03/19/97 06:16 AM

To: Robert.Herriot @ Eng.Sun.COM@internet
cc: ipp @ pwg.org@internet
Subject: Re: IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements

OK

RKD> I believe that there are cases where:
RKD>   - the printer accepts the job
RKD>   - the printer starts printing before
RKD      all of the print data is sent
RKD>   - and printing fails before the response
RKD>     to the print request flows
RKD>   - when the response flows, why not
RKD>     report accurately the state of affairs?

RKD> I agre with Don ... how can printing resume
RKD> is data does not continue to flow?

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert Herriot)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 12:55:57 -0800

The important point here is that we cannot have what looks like a response
to a print operation and then send more data.

> From [email-masked] Wed Mar 19 05:12:19 1997
> >page 37: section 8.14.
> >

---

From: Don Wright <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Mar 97 22:23:28 EST

I agree with Roger.  In the non-spooling case certain responses may
very well be different.  I plan to leave it as it is.

Don

To: ipp%pwg.org @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP
cc:  (bcc: Don Wright)
From: rdebry%us.ibm.com @ interlock.lexmark.com (Roger K Debry) @ SMTP
Date: 03/19/97 04:10:19 PM
Subject: Re: IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements

Classification:
Prologue:
Epilogue: Roger K deBry

That's not clear!  It depends on what we finally end up with as the protocol.
You've obviously assumed one approach (which might be the correct one, but
since we haven't yet agreed, it is still an open issue.

---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 03/19/97 02:09
PM ---------------------------

        ipp-owner @ pwg.org
        03/19/97 01:59 PM

To: don @ lexmark.com@internet, Robert.Herriot @ Eng.Sun.COM@internet
cc: ipp @ pwg.org@internet
Subject: Re: IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements

> >  I think we agreed that the last request "Here is last part of the document
to > >   print" and response would be deleted and replaced with words saying
that > the job > >   resumed printing. > > I struggled with this one because
in the scenario the printer is not capable of > spooling.  I think this case
simply indicates that an error occurred while there > was still data to be sent
to this printer and once the problem was fixed, > printing > resumed and more
print data was sent.  The cases we discussed where > there was language like
this were all chunking cases.This is not a chunking > case but rather a
non-spooling printer case.  I think I should leave it as it > stands. > >
 > Don >

---

From: Roger K Debry <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 09:47:17 -0500

Classification:
Prologue:
Epilogue: Roger K deBry

Only because you have an assumed protocol solution!
---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 03/20/97 07:45
AM ---------------------------

        Robert.Herriot @ Eng.Sun.COM
        03/19/97 06:03 PM

To: Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM
cc:
Subject: Re: IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements

Even if we break up the job into two operations create-job and
send-rest-of-job, it is unlikely that the jam will occur between
these two operations. Instead it will occur in the midst of one
of them.  The scenario still needs a correction, regardless of
whether print is performed with one operation or more than one
operation.

Bob Herriot

> From [email-masked] Wed Mar 19 13:15:48 1997
>
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 03/19/97
02:09 > PM --------------------------- > >         ipp-owner @ pwg.org >
03/19/97 01:59 PM > > > To: don @ lexmark.com@internet, Robert.Herriot @
Eng.Sun.COM@internet > cc: ipp @ pwg.org@internet > Subject: Re: IPP>REQ
comments on latest requirements > > The important point here is that we cannot
have what looks like a response > to a print operation and then send more data.
> > >
> From [email-masked] Wed Mar 19 05:12:19 1997 > > >page 37: section 8.14. > >
> > > >  I think we agreed that the last request "Here is last part of the
document > to > >   print" and response would be deleted and replaced with words
saying > that > the job > >   resumed printing. > > I struggled with this one
because > in the scenario the printer is not capable of > spooling.  I think
this case > simply indicates that an error occurred while there > was still data
to be sent > to this printer and once the problem was fixed, > printing >
resumed and more > print data was sent.  The cases we discussed where > there
was language like > this were all chunking cases.This is not a chunking > case
but rather a > non-spooling printer case.  I think I should leave it as it >
stands. > > >  > Don > > >