[2136] in Enterprise Print Delivery Team
Re: Outcome from Tonight's Meeting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David F Lambert)
Wed Dec 26 18:42:36 2001
Message-Id: <200112262342.SAA13115@pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 01 18:34:42 EST
From: David F Lambert <LAMBERT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
To: Theresa M Regan <tregan@MIT.EDU>, Bob Ferrara <rferrara@MIT.EDU>
cc: Enterprise Printing Delivery Project Team <printdel@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:01:38 -0500 from <tregan@MIT.EDU>
Howdy Theresa,
Still playing email catch up... We'll probably want to discuss this
more at our planned meeting on the 7th.
The "hidden printer" idea was to hide the printer (really queue) in
the browser interface. The thought behind this was why show the
world (until we get htaccess installed) queues which are intended
to be used by a small subset of the community. Since CAO folks
are accessing the printer via klp not the browser, we thought it
would make sense to hide EP* from others. As a reminder, in the
long run, we'll probably want to kill EP* altogether in favor of
the new available of general use queues for holes, letter, etc.
I think we subsequently discussed the second issue you raised re
the disposition of a "rejected" file. I think we all agreed it
would be advantageous to place the file in a "look-at-me-for-resolution"
queue with IPM if doable.
Hope that helps.
-Dave
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:01:38 -0500 you said:
>Hi Dave and Bob,
>
>Although I agree that the matrix represents the matrix from the whiteboard,
>I am still uncomfortable that I understand its implications.
>
>Example: Hidden printer... you note EP1; we also mentioned FSS1
>What is meant by "hidden printer"? It was suggested that it would not
>display on the web page. I am uncomfortable with that anomaly and while
>chatting last evening was trying to understand the various pieces to reach
>a common understanding.
>
>If the description states "SAP", does that mean that we are testing the
>output, such that, if it does originate from SAP, it will rejected? Or, is
>the description merely a description? Example: when testing a queue
>marked SAP, if a print job from an Athena prompt or elsewhere is sent,
>would it be rejected?
>
>It is my understanding as we left last night's meeting, we would ponder the
>matrix to be sure that we understand it and meet again to discuss it and
>reach common closure. Tentatively, it was suggested that may be Friday
>morning's meeting.
>
>Thanks,
>Theresa
>
>
>
>At 09:35 PM 12/18/2001 -0500, David F Lambert wrote:
>>Bob & Theresa,
>>
>>Please let me know if the matrix below does NOT represent our board
>>work tonight.
>>
>>Printdel,
>>
>>I know you're seeing this blind for the first time. However, please
>>review the following matrix. Does it look reasonable given our stated
>>goals? How difficult would it be to implement? I will touch bases
>>with each of you by phone tomorrow. There have been NO decisions or
>>commitments of any kind.
>>
>>
>>
>> queue klp IPM auth bldg-rm &
>> type req'd list req'd Cost Obj req'd
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>| restricted | y | y | n |
>>| non-SAP | | | |
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>| general use | n* | n | y |
>>| from SAP | | | |
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>| SAP G/L | n* | y | n |
>>| | | | |
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>| general use | y | n | y |
>>| non-SAP | | | |
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>| hidden (EP1) | n | n | n |
>>| | | | |
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>* denotes authentication mechanism using existing SAP implementation
>
>
