IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)

IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)

Jay Martin jkm at underscore.com
Fri Mar 13 15:25:13 EST 1998


I agree with Randy completely.  The way Bob describes it,
IPP is absolutely bound to HTTP...theory or not.


Why is it such a big deal to split the document into its
two respective parts?  I would think that those who truly
believe the IPP encoding is "transport independent" would
insist on such a separation of the documentation.  Further,
I don't think the IETF cares all that much about whether
there is one document or two.


	...jay


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--  JK Martin               |  Email:   jkm at underscore.com          --
--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              --
--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              --
--  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Turner, Randy wrote:
> 
> I'm curious why the existing binary encoding is inherently dependent on
> chunking?....I thought chunking was a part of the transport of the
> encoding. I don't think there is anything inherent (or explicitly
> referenced) by the current encoding that involves chunking. You're right
> that another transport would have to solve the chunking problem, but
> it's a TRANSPORT issue, so this would naturally fall into a transport
> mapping document. If there was a bit or byte that specified HTTP
> chunking within the binary encoding, then this is a different story.
> 
> Randy
> 
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From:   Robert Herriot [SMTP:robert.herriot at Eng.Sun.COM]
>         Sent:   Friday, March 13, 1998 12:06 PM
>         To:     Turner, Randy; 'ipp at pwg.org'
>         Subject:        Re: IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)
> 
>         I think we had this discussion in Austin as part of Tom's
> proposal.  We
>         decided to change the name of the protocol document. Its new
> name is
>         "Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Encoding and Transport".  We
> decided not to
>         split the two documents.
> 
>         Although the IPP encoding is, in theory, transport independent.
> In fact, it
>         depends on HTTP chunking. With an alternate transport, we would
> have to
>         solve the chunking problem.  It would be more efficient if the
> document data
>         were the only part chunked, but that would require a change to
> the encoding
>         layer.
> 
>         So, at this point, I don't endorse separating the two documents.
> 
>         Bob Herriot
> 
>         At 03:36 PM 3/12/98 , Turner, Randy wrote:
>         >
>         >Would anyone have any problem(s) splitting the protocol (not
> model)
>         >document into two documents?
>         >
>         >Document 1 would be an encoding document
>         >Document 2 would describe how to transport the encoding over
> HTTP 1.1
>         >
>         >?
>         >
>         >Randy
>         >



More information about the Ipp mailing list