Yes, there is some similarity with ISO DPA with subordinate IPP Printer
objects and DPA physical Printer objects. However, we are also adding the
Device object to IPP which could be a small subset of the Printer MIB which
drivers and servers find useful for controlling the "lump of metal" with the
same protocol that they are submitting jobs. The Device object is not
something in DPA.
From: Ira Mcdonald [mailto:imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 07:24
To: hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com; imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com; ipp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> OPS - Set divided into Set2 Printer...[devices]
Because IPP/1.1 doesn't have a 'device-name-supported' attribute
for the IPP Printer object, the effect of fan-out or fan-in
on the current SLP 'printer:' template is zero.
HOWEVER, if either fan-out or fan-in are going to be modelled
(relative to the IPP Printer object), then something should
probably be done to the SLP 'printer:' template.
Related topic - IPP 'subordinate printers' sound awfully
like ISO DPA 'physical printers' subordinate to ISO
DPA 'logical printers'. If the IPP Printer object stops
being an island in space, then the REAL relationships
(of nomenclature and of meaning) between the ISO DPA
'logical/physical printers' and the IPP Printer types
needs to be made clear and unambiguous. Novell NDSP,
oops, NDPS and Dazel and PrintXchange and others are
based on ISO DPA (with the inevitable unique extensions).
- Ira McDonald