IPP> NOT - Suggested resolutions to the 27 Is

IPP> NOT - Suggested resolutions to the 27 Is

IPP> NOT - Suggested resolutions to the 27 Is

kugler at us.ibm.com kugler at us.ibm.com
Fri Jul 30 11:20:50 EDT 1999


 <37a19d20.64ae693- at easysw.com> wrote: 
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/ipp/?start=6092
> Hugo Parra wrote:
> > 
> > We've said that IPP Notification would allow printers to use
> > "general-purpose" Event Notification Services available to them
> > on the network.  By not supporting straight TCP notification we
> > might be hampering the implementation of this requirement.  I
> > don't understand why supporting the suggested three application-
> > level protocols should preclude us from allowing straight TCP
> > subscriptions that can be easily routed through network
> > notification services.
> 
> The problem is that using a direct TCP or UDP type of connection does
> not allow any kind of error checking, and makes receiving multiple
> messages over the same link potentially dangerous.
> 
> There is talk of defining a (simple) alternate transport protocol for
> IPP that can be used over things other than TCP/IP (in fact, I think
> it's one of the things on the new IPP charter?), and that would
> probably allow a direct TCP or UDP connection for notification.
> 

Hey, what ever happened to HTTP-NG?  That would have provided an
excellent solution to these problems.  When I last looked at it, it had
a general application-level protocol that was like a peer-to-peer OO
RPC. 




More information about the Ipp mailing list