IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPP] What value do IPP Printers provide for "printer-name"?

Michael Sweet via ipp <ipp@pwg.org> Wed, 12 June 2024 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ipp-bounces@pwg.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCDBEC1DFD28 for <ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_FAIL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pwg.org header.b="X9Ce/h/l"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pwg.org header.b="CF6Jql0g"; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=msweet.org header.b="T3rf/ECi"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eqwUODl8OKb1 for <ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pwg.org (mail.pwg.org [172.104.19.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AAC2C14F6F3 for <ipp-archive2@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.pwg.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id B0F0BC751; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:07:38 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.pwg.org B0F0BC751
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=pwg.org; s=default; t=1718150858; bh=ivHRkGD/9KPIGiaDVfFr2vohAY4RvVZ+LVEta2sEoPE=; h=In-Reply-To:Date:References:To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=X9Ce/h/lG45eVn2x4ymoRcDnuOfmFgXAgJiXAuZqruzJvLSr4RDH18s20nfLWKjDp O9E8AT2lj0M8JxHE+tY4SbFRsZOIuuARV0nwDCYIyOtFbLxzz/fWGkmYggl8DWZUf4 BMlAHWA4Gr/eSIgkv+3pNksFt1kJeKHVW1jqEJo0=
Received: from mail.pwg.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782F43A77; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:07:37 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.pwg.org 782F43A77
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=pwg.org; s=default; t=1718150857; bh=ivHRkGD/9KPIGiaDVfFr2vohAY4RvVZ+LVEta2sEoPE=; h=In-Reply-To:Date:References:To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=CF6Jql0god+Lnan51ssn0AnU7rYJCF0GDKG7IXe4+5xYz4dxm3L89JZRVQacsjM0C ZZG41MS7f4u9jNLDKSIoWywqPAXyMpBqAQc68S9DbX/AVwlHRKR5iOIuAtc9Hl8Skb v+n7L8NJcMBlLXZJf7a7amyFOcgWZdwXqn7bK6Ok=
X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org
Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org
Received: by mail.pwg.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 01B2CBFFD; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:07:36 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.pwg.org 01B2CBFFD
Authentication-Results: mail.pwg.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=msweet.org header.i=@msweet.org header.b="T3rf/ECi"
Received: from mail.msweet.org (mail.msweet.org [173.255.209.91]) by mail.pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3545C21E6 for <ipp@pwg.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:07:34 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.pwg.org 3545C21E6
Received: from smtpclient.apple (cbl-66-186-76-47.vianet.ca [66.186.76.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.msweet.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4E4B980F07; Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:07:33 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.msweet.org 4E4B980F07
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=msweet.org; s=default; t=1718150853; bh=sxKUw6essRssmUL2kir110tUKHVRNTrWMhaJ09Fp0bQ=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=T3rf/ECiaNc6PncmMCzxANP2g7biuyE//nVLzF/ixuwmJVe23KBU+mdxb/xzpRzlf lIpUjlJdIwCP9fEcjM9p3azPaSHp+95tGByRicsOy7vMlO8smbvXA0nZht0DmF5DAz gEuIuPd4zfCqBS7xB4k8pV5IbTlHsnBTdeJZimyU=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.600.62\))
In-Reply-To: <689B72E4-A748-4921-BAD5-920081A836B7@xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:07:21 -0400
Message-Id: <E0787A86-2FC7-4B77-9491-2E43BB648A55@msweet.org>
References: <4D8663F2-82C6-45D5-879C-7282F9587884@hp.com> <12C5EF2E-27DF-4C55-9352-5858DD84D60E@msweet.org> <541C3F9B-0DB5-4880-87BF-9BB1DBB81F46@hp.com> <826064B5-8388-4292-81A1-72059D2426A0@msweet.org> <FFDDDC98-97F3-4289-9226-1ECF6D52DB74@xerox.com> <407DB673-6CE6-4981-8E6E-A9C59C86CF72@hp.com> <688BF75C-0863-4ECC-A1A0-75F77F91A8BD@xerox.com> <689B72E4-A748-4921-BAD5-920081A836B7@xerox.com>
To: "Rizzo, Christopher" <christopher.rizzo@xerox.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.600.62)
Subject: Re: [IPP] What value do IPP Printers provide for "printer-name"?
X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: ISTO-PWG Internet Printing Protocol workgroup discussion forum <ipp.pwg.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.pwg.org/mailman/options/ipp>, <mailto:ipp-request@pwg.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipp@pwg.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipp-request@pwg.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>, <mailto:ipp-request@pwg.org?subject=subscribe>
From: Michael Sweet via ipp <ipp@pwg.org>
Reply-To: ISTO-PWG Internet Printing Protocol workgroup discussion forum <ipp@pwg.org>
Cc: Michael Sweet <msweet@msweet.org>, PWG IPP Workgroup <ipp@pwg.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org
Sender: ipp <ipp-bounces@pwg.org>

Chris,

> On Jun 11, 2024, at 7:13 PM, Rizzo, Christopher <christopher.rizzo@xerox.com> wrote:
> 
> Of course - I just thought of what happens when there is a name conflict with another device on the network, and tested it.
>  The conflict caused the registered name via MDNS to have "(2)" appended to it, but neither printer-name nor printer-dns-sd-name were updated to match.
>  So now I'm wondering if that is a bug. Is that a bug?  I think that is as I read PWG 5100.13 - printer-dns-sd-name at a minumum should have changed to match the MDNS (updated) registered name.

Yes, printer-dns-sd-name should update to the current DNS-SD Service Instance Name.

________________________
Michael Sweet

_______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
ipp@pwg.org
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status