Re: RFC: "job-processing-time (integer(0:MAX))" Job Status attribute

Hi Mike,

Agreed - a good idea to add this attribute.

Cheers,
- Ira

*Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)*

*Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF*
*Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG*

*Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG*








*Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer
Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF
Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North
Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: [email protected]
<[email protected]>(permanent) PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434*


On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 9:07 AM Michael Sweet via ipp <[email protected]> wrote:

> All,
>
> I am preparing an updated draft of the IPP Job Extensions v2.1
> specification (itself an errata update) and one of the comments from the
> initial review requested a note for accounting implementations WRT
> [date-]time-at-processing.
>
> Since some accounting solutions use processing time for billing, and since
> processing time is not "time-at-completed - time-at-processing", it
> occurred to me that we could simply add an attribute to report the actual
> processing time.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> ________________________
> Michael Sweet
>
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
>

_______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp