Scott Lawrance said:
> Surely you are not suggesting that an IPP client implementation must
> include SNMP as well as HTTP? If you thought you were getting
> resistance to layering IPP on HTTP...
No, I was suggesting the IPP client would include SNMP as well as IPP. It's
everyone trying to squeeze through the same hole in the firewall which is
causing HTTP to enter the conversation. If IPP is to layer
on HTTP, they why not SNMP. I'm sure it has already been done.
>HL> Does IPP feel that they have failed if they do not provide a
>HL> complete, end-to-end, all-in-one protocol?
> For submission, including at least all negotiation required to
> ensure that the submission is acceptable - yes, certainly; anything
> less would be a failure.
I'm curious why you have not included Job Monitoring and Cancel?
>>> Harry Lewis <<<