Hugo,
I sent out a reference to this from Oslo earlier. Here it is again:
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wolf-http-select-00.txt
Carl-Uno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Parra [mailto:HPARRA at novell.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 4:10 PM
> To: kugler at us.ibm.com; ipp at pwg.org> Subject: Re: IPP> NOT - Suggested resolutions to the 27 Issues
>>> Carl,
>> Can you point me to documentation of event notification via
> HTTP? It doesn't require the receiver of event notification
> to implement and HTTP Server, right?
>> -Hugo
>> >>> <kugler at us.ibm.com> 07/28/99 10:19AM >>>
>> <918c79ab552bd211a2bd00805f15ce850198e57- at x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es> .xerox.c
> om> wrote:
> original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/ipp/?start=6060> > ISSUE 3: For TCP/IP delivery, what about leaving the
> connection open
> > versus having to reestablish a connection for each event? Who
> > specifies: client in subscription, Printer implementation,
> Notification
> > Recipient, Administrator?
> >
> > XR> We believe that we should use existing application
> level protocols
> > for delivering notifications: HTTP, SMTP, and SNMP. These layer on
> > TCP/IP, TCP/IP, and UDP, respectively. We can write a
> simple MIB as a
> > separate RFC that has only the SNMP trap bindings to the IPP
> > notification content.
> >
>> Good. HTTP/1.1 connections are persistent by default. SMTP
> can deliver
> multiple messages per connection. SNMP, of course, doesn't use
> connections.
>> -Carl
>>