IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Identifying jobs in requests

RE: IPP> Identifying jobs in requests

Paul Moore (paulmo@microsoft.com)
Thu, 17 Jul 1997 13:49:05 -0700

I mean that not using jobids at all (which is what we do at present)
ties us to HTTP.

In the current model a cancel job is done by posting a cancel operation
to the job URL. No job id is sent, it is implied in the transport
endpoint.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JK Martin [SMTP:jkm@underscore.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 1997 1:45 PM
> To: Paul Moore
> Cc: ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: IPP> Identifying jobs in requests
>
> > also using URLs to imply the job id means that we are tied to a
> specific
> > transport - something we tried to avoid. If we were to use , say,
> raw IP
> > then you would need to assign an IP port to each job or something
> like
> > that.
>
>
> Is this really true? Do you mean we would be tying ourselves to HTTP
> by using a URL as a job ID?
>
> It would seem that just because we choose the use the syntax and
> semantics of a URL doesn't mean we necessarily tie ourselves to HTTP,
> right?
>
> ...jay