I would like to see the answers to Ron's good questions before approving
these registration proposals. Perhaps because Fujitsu wants to identify
the BPP and CU-DEV protocols specifically? Could a device support both
BPP and chPortTCP(37), so that it would be important to have both as
separate enums?
Also I agree that there should be a reference to the documentation.
Tom
At 18:18 09/14/98 PDT, Ron Bergman wrote:
>>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:12:52 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
>From: Ron Bergman <rbergma at dpc.com>
>To: lpyoung at lexmark.com>Cc: pmp at unspecified-domain, pwg.org at unspecified-domain,
>yosimura at cp.cs.fujitsu.co.jp>Subject: Re: PMP> Additions from Fujitsu
>>Lloyd,
>>Some questions for Fujitsu.
>>For the two TCP Ports, is there a reason why chPortTCP(37) or
>chBiDirPortTCP(38) cannot be used? Were these port numbers assigned by
>IANA? Are the port numbers fixed or variable?
>>I thought that one of our rules for new Interpreter Languages was that "a
>reference to the language documentation must be provided." Also, language
>is spelled incorrectly (languedge).
>> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.
>>>On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 lpyoung at lexmark.com wrote:
>>> I have received the following request from Fujitsu:
>>>> 1. Add the following to PrtChannelTypeTC
>>>> chFJBPP
>> --FUJITSU LIMITED
>> --Business Printer Protocol(BPP)
>> --TCP Port 9313
>>>>>> 2. Add the following to PrtChannelTypeTC
>>>> chFJCU-DEV
>> --FUJITSU LIMITED
>> --ControlUnit-DEVice(CU-DEV)
>> --TCP Port 747
>>>> 3. Add the following to PrtInterpreterLangFamilyTC
>>>> langFUJITSU
>> --FUJITSU Printer languedge
>>>> If there are no comments by Friday 9/18 then I will add them to the current
>> draft.
>>>> Lloyd
>>>>>>>>>>