What difference does it make whether or not two SLP entries point to the same
output device? This seems like an administrator issue. If the administrator
wants two entries to point to the same output device, even across directory
contexts (or within directory-local context) then we can support him. On the
other hand, if the administrator wants to uniquely identify all output devices
that are advertised, then he can do that too.
I'm trying to identify why we care if two different entries point to the same
output device? All we have to do is give the administrator the "ability" to
create uniqueness if they wish. I don't think we need to specify what is
and what isn't. With respect to a directory entry, the "printer-name" is human
understandable, as opposed to the URI string which may or may not be
understandable to a human, but is definitely understandable by client
At 06:44 PM 1/4/99 -0800, Robert Herriot wrote:
>> I agree that there is no guarantee that "printer-name" values are unique
> even within a domain, but they should be unique as a practical matter so
> that a user can uniquely identify a printer by its "printer-name" instead
> the URL, at least in a local context.
>> There remains the issue of how does anyone determine if two separate SLP
> entries (with different URLs) represent the same output device. I am
> suggesting using a convention that a "printer-name" qualified by a domain
> name and SLP scope uniquely identifies a printer.
>>> Bob Herriot
>> At 05:02 PM 1/4/99 , Manros, Carl-Uno B wrote:
> >I welcome this attempt to get a simpler SLP solution and in practice I
> >we will find few printers that have more than one URI.
> >However, your assumption in a) that you could use 'printer-name' to find
> >whether a printer has several URIs does not
> >seem correct. There is no guarantee that "printer-name' values are unique,
> >even within the same domain (at least not according to IPP).
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Robert Herriot [mailto:robert.herriot at Eng.Sun.COM]
> >Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 4:38 PM
> >To: Ira McDonald; imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com; ipp at pwg.org;
srvloc at srvloc.org
> >Subject: Re: IPP> Revised SLP 'printer:' template for comments
> >At our Tucson meeting, the IPP group agreed with James Kempf that there
> >should be a separate SLP entry for each URI and that the URI associated
> >the entry would be the printer's URI. Ira, I know that you disagreed with
> >this direction.
> >If we stay with this decision, it implies to me that there is
> > a) no need for the 'printer-uri-supported' attribute in the
> >can be
> > determined by finding all URI's containing a 'printer-name' with a
> >particular value.
> > b) 'uri-security-supported' contains the security supported for the
> >associated URI and
> > not for other URIs associated with a printer.
> > c) the complexity of two parallel attributes is eliminated.
> >Bob Herriot
Sharp Laboratories of America
rturner at sharplabs.com