Subject: IPP> RE: JMP> Final IPP/JMP job-state and job-state-reasons

From: "Caruso,Angelo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:00:07 PDT

Tom wrote:

> 5. We agreed that job-state-reasons are all OPTIONAL.
> 
> The following JMP sentence will be included in the JmJobStateReasons1TC
> textual-convention:
> 
> Implementation of these values is OPTIONAL, i.e., an agent NEED NOT
> implement them, even if the device supports the functionality represented by
> the reason and is available to the agent.

The last part of the last sentence here, "i.e., an agent NEED NOT 
 implement them, even if the device supports the functionality 
 represented by the reason and is available to the agent", is 
 pratically encouraging implementors NOT to implement the job state 
 reasons. Why not just say "they're optional", PERIOD? I suggest the 
 wording be shortened to,

"Implementation of these values is OPTIONAL."

for both JMP and IPP.

Thanks,
Angelo

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:26:26 PDT

I haven't been following this discussion carefully, but
I think there's a problem with a protocol standard attempts
to dictate what must or must not be 'implemented'. If you
just talk about what has to be sent in order to achieve
interoperability, then you'll get into less of these kinds
of arguments.

IF you want to tell clients about the status of the job,
THEN send the following job-state-reasons.

Conformance then becomes a non-issue.

-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter