Subject: IPP> Validate-Job for print by reference

From: Roger K Debry <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:03:01 -0400

On Wednesday's call there was some discussion of a proposal to add a new
operation
or a parameter to Validate-Job to handle print by reference.  It is not clear
to me that we
need such an operation.

Currently, I believe the function of Validate-Job is to validate the job
parameters against
Printer capabilities.  This should be independent of whether or not the
document will be
passed or printed by reference.

If one wants to test whether or not print-by reference is supported, then he
would send
a Get-Operations request.

If the objective of this new operation is to test whether or not the given URI
is valid,
i.e. if the Printer can get it, then I am concerned that we are testing a
time-dependent
variable.  I could try the URI at one instant and because of server or network
load
not be able to get to the document. Furthermore, I could find the document and
report
back okay only to have the document owner move or delete it before the Print-URI
request was sent and operated upon by the Printer.

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert Herriot)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:59:05 -0700

I'm having second thoughts about this too. The most that the Printer is likely
to do is verify that the URL is syntactically OK, but it doesn't verify
that the PDL for Print-Job is syntactically OK.

I agree with Roger, let's remove document-uri from Validate Job and have
it validate attributes and not document-related stuff.

> From [email-masked] Fri Jul 18 09:14:40 1997
>

---

From: Scott Isaacson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 09:47:47 -0600

Roger,

My comments have an SAI> prefix

>>> Roger K Debry <[email-masked]> 07/18 10:03 AM >>>
On Wednesday's call there was some discussion of a proposal to add a new
operation
or a parameter to Validate-Job to handle print by reference.  It is not
clear
to me that we
need such an operation.

SAI> The proposal to add an operation only lasted about 5 seconds.  I agree
SAI> with you - read my lips NO NEW OPERATION

SAI> The new parameter was not to "test whether or not print-by-reference
SAI> is supported" but just the URI itself

If the objective of this new operation is to test whether or not the given
URI
is valid,
i.e. if the Printer can get it, then I am concerned that we are testing a
time-dependent
variable.  I could try the URI at one instant and because of server or
network
load
not be able to get to the document. Furthermore, I could find the document
and
report
back okay only to have the document owner move or delete it before the
Print-URI
request was sent and operated upon by the Printer.

SAI> The objective of the new parameter (attribute?) is as you describe
above.
SAI>  I agree that even if you validated that the reference is good at
submit
SAI> time, the reference may be invalid at print time.  We all agreed that
we
SAI> needed to add some error code to show that the reference was bad
SAI> at print time therefore, if we already must include the new error code
SAI> in the set implemented by some implementation that supports print-by
SAI> reference, then why not be able to check at submission time as well.
SAI> 
SAI> The final proposal was to add an optional "document-uri" to Validate-
SAI> Job that would be checked for valid URI syntax only - the Printer would
SAI> not try to follow the reference and see if the server was up, the
document
SAI> could be located, etc.  
SAI> 
SAI> However, if we"believe the function of Validate-Job is to validate the
job
SAI> parameters against Printer capabilities" then we should drop this
SAI> new proposed parameter.  I could go either way.  What does the rest
SAI> of the group think?