Subject: IPP> REQ - Issues with the 2/17 Requirements Scenarios

From: [email-masked] (Stephen Zilles)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 21:55:53 PST

I found that the Scenarios in Section 8 did little to limit the scope of
V1.0 of IPP. That was perhaps disappointing.

I did, however, have issues with some of the scenarios.

I thought that handling driver download was not a V1.0 feature

I am not sure why there are a number of different scenarios for the
failure of a print job: 8.8, 8.10, 8.12, 8.18. Should not these all be
one scenario (which could talk about different return information)?

I think that server pull for long jobs (8.17) is out of scope for V1.0
(and that we should resolve whether the protocol needs long job support
for push in 1.0)  I think there is a need for getting a job ID before
any documents are submitted to allow status monitoring which
transmission of data is going on. I an not convinced that checkpoint
restart is needed for V1.0

I do not think that 8.19 (referenced resources) is a requirement for
V1.0

        Steve

---

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 23:18:31 -0800

A few comments to Steve's comments.

Carl-Uno

>I thought that handling driver download was not a V1.0 feature

CBM> It is certainly not on Version 1.0

>one scenario (which could talk about different return information)?

CBM> Useful simplification

>restart is needed for V1.0

CBM> I would be willing to change 8.17 to a normal push version, but is keen to 
CBM> keep support for long jobs in some form.

>I do not think that 8.19 (referenced resources) is a requirement for

CBM> I agree

CBM> I would also like to support the suggestion from Bob to take ut the
chunking 
CBM> parts from the scenarios, I have come to believe that this is a pure
protocol 
CBM> issue.

End of comments (it is only 11.15 pm here)

Carl-Uno