To restate - when I do a canceljob operation I do not supply a job
identifier - the target job is implicit in the transport endpoint - this
ties us to a transport.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Turner [SMTP:rturner@sharplabs.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 1997 5:05 PM
> To: Paul Moore
> Cc: 'JK Martin'; ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: IPP> Identifying jobs in requests
>
> Paul Moore wrote:
>
> > I mean that not using jobids at all (which is what we do at present)
> > ties us to HTTP.
>
> In the model document, job identifiers are URLs. If we have pushed
> URLs
> out of themain body of the protocol up into the transport layer, then
> this is a mistake. Job identifiers
> belong within the application/ipp body, and, according to the model
> document, object
> identifiers are in URL format. Also, the use of URL/URI strings as
> object identifiers in
> and of itself does not tie us to any one transport mechanism.
>
> Randy
>
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>