Subject: JMP> MOD - simplified legal state transition diagram

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 07:29:32 PDT

So the simplified legal state transition diagram for IPP and JMP would become,
following Bob's proposal:

                New state
Old state       unknown(2)  pending(3)  processing(4) canceled(5) completed(6)
unknown(2)                  yes         yes
pending(3)                              yes           yes
processing(4)               yes                       yes         yes
canceled(5)     yes
completed(6)    yes

A blank entry indicates impossible transitions.  Self loops are not
indicated, such as a Get-Attributes operation on a job, since they aren't
a job state transition.

For IPP we need to consider which job states and job state transtions are
required for conformance and which are optional.

JMP requires that processing(4), canceled(5), and completed(6) are
mandatory, so that pending(3) is optional.  What about unknown(2)?
The former needsAttention state was also mandatory, so that the 
new job-state reason: printer-stopped, should become a mandator job state
reason, correct?

For IPP and JMP, all transitions into the canceled state should be required.
However, the transition from processing back to pending (a job-held situation)
is optional.

---

From: "Caruso,Angelo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 12:48:07 PDT

Tom,

To test my understanding: you are suggesting that the 'retained' sate 
 be removed from IPP, the 'terminating' state in IPP be renamed 
 'canceled', and the 'needsAttention' state ne removed from the Job 
 MIB. Correct?

Note, this will have the side effect of requiring that the 
 jobStateReasons1 attribute in the Job MIB become mandatory (for sake 
 of the 'printer-stopped' bit). The original motivation for the 
 'needsAttention' state was that a job monitoring application could 
 quickly determine that the device needs operator intervention without 
 having to poll the job state reasons. Even so, I am in favor of making 
 the change in order for the IPP and JMP job state models to be as 
 identical as possible. I just want to make sure everyone is aware of 
 the trade off being made here. If this change is agreed to, then 
 should we move the newly-mandatory jobStateReasons1 attribute to the 
 job table?

Thanks,
Angelo

----------
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked];  [email-masked]
Subject: JMP> MOD - simplified legal state transition diagram
Date: Wednesday, May 21, 1997 12:00AM

                New state