I am late to this discussion, but I too violently agree with the
understanding I have of Bob's summary:
1. The model document needs to state that " the operations whose target is
a Printer includes a parameter called printer-uri and operations whose
target is a job shall include a parameter called job-uri"
2. Bob suggests that the protocol document should state (since the model
implies) that the request-uri has the same value as the printer-uri/job-uri
in the operation. (I agree with this - if they are different, how does the
client get the two values - GetJobs and all the Creates return just one?)
3. The protocol document (except for appendix B) is a mapping of the
model document to HTTP.
If all that is true, can't we state in the Protocol document (mapping of IPP
model to HTTP) that the way to encode the special parameters "job-uri" or
"printer-uri" is in the request-uri itself therefore we don't need the
redundancy in this mapping?
Or are we expecting that payloads (user data) from one transport mapping
with interperate with payloads mapped onto some other future transport
In that case, I can see a need to include it twice - once in the request-uri
and once in the "printer-uri" input parameter.
>>> Robert Herriot <Robert.Herriot at Eng.Sun.COM> 07/21 3:10 PM >>>
I sent the following on Friday. I hope that we all agree the two paragraphs
So, I think that we are in agreement that the model and protocol documents
should state that the operations whose target is a Printer shall include
a parameter called printer-uri and operations whose target is a job shall
include a parameter called job-uri.
Randy suggests that the value of job-uri/printer-uri could differ from
the request-uri on the HTTP Request-Line, but the model has no such
concept. So unless there are strong arguments to the contrary, the
protocol document will state that the request-uri has the same value
as the printer-uri/job-uri in the operation.
> From rdebry at us.ibm.com Mon Jul 21 10:34:32 1997
> From: Roger K Debry <rdebry at us.ibm.com>
> To: <ipp at pwg.org>
> Subject: IPP>MOD - Job Identifier
> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:24:50 -0400
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Sender: ipp-owner at pwg.org> X-Lines: 16
>> There has been a lot of discussion on the proposal made by Paul Moore on
> use of Job URL.
> Unfortunately, there is no way to know if we really have consensus on the
> proposal. I'd like to
> see a re-statement of what we believe the agreed to changes are and some
> of the discussion
> list to see if we have a consensus. Would Bob and/or Paul be willing to
>>> Roger K deBry
> Senior Techncial Staff Member
> Architecture and Technology
> IBM Printing Systems
> email: rdebry at us.ibm.com> phone: 1-303-924-4080