IPP> MOD - RE: STATUS CODES

IPP> MOD - RE: STATUS CODES

IPP> MOD - RE: STATUS CODES

Keith_Carter at aussmtp.austin.ibm.com Keith_Carter at aussmtp.austin.ibm.com
Fri Apr 25 09:19:57 EDT 1997


  Carl-Uno,


  There is alot of overlap with the status conditions and associated
  messages between HTTP 1.1 and the proposal for IPP.  An IPP client that
  uses HTTP 1.1 could simply pass back the HTTP 1.1 messages asis in the
  response to an IPP application.


  Keith
  ---------------------- Forwarded by Keith Carter on 04-24-97 01:36 PM
  ---------------------------




  DELEGATE @ AUSVMR
  04-23-97 02:19 PM






  To:   Keith Carter
  cc:
  Subject:  IPP> MOD - RE: STATUS CODES






  To: KCARTER --AUSNOTES


  From: DELEGATE
  Subject: IPP> MOD - RE: STATUS CODES
   +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   H  The following note is being forwarded from KCARTER at AUSVMR.           H
   H  DO NOT USE the F6 REPLY function to reply to this note. You must        H
   H  contact the sender directly if you wish to reply, and not DELEGATE.     H
   +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+


   ---------------------------- Note:    -------------------------------------
   Received: from lists.underscore.com by vnet.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with
      Wed, 23 Apr 97 12:28:56 EDT
   Received: from localhost (daemon at localhost) by lists.underscore.com
  (8.7.5/8.7
   Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:27:16 -0400
   Received: (from daemon at localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id
  MAA
   Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970423092134.00fb5a78 at garfield>
   X-Sender: cmanros at garfield
   X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
   Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:21:34 PDT
   To: Keith_Carter at aussmtp.austin.ibm.com, ipp at pwg.org
   From: Carl-Uno Manros <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com>
   Subject: IPP> MOD - RE: Status codes
   In-Reply-To: <9704231031.AA12805 at norman.cp10.es.xerox.com>
   Mime-Version: 1.0
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
   Sender: ipp-owner at pwg.org


   At 08:22 AM 4/22/97 PDT, Keith_Carter at aussmtp.austin.ibm.com wrote:
   >
   >
   >  Attached is a proposal for status code defintions.  I
   >  borrowed the design approach and applicable text from the
   >  HTTP 1.1 RFC (RFC 2068).  If this proposal is incorporated
   >  into the IPP Model document, maybe we should include an
   >  acknowledgement to the authors of HTTP 1.1 in the document.
   >


   Keith,


   just a question for clarification. You mentioned that you have taken
   much of this from the HTTP specification. Does that mean that we are
   in effect duplicating error messages that would already be given on
   the HTTP level, assuming that we have mapped IPP to HTTP?


   Carl-Uno




   Carl-Uno Manros
   Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
   701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
   Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
   Email: manros at cp10.es.xerox.com


  >>>> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS NOTE <<<<



More information about the Ipp mailing list