IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> MOD - Outside the box resolution for the two URIs issue

RE: IPP> MOD - Outside the box resolution for the two URIs issue

Turner, Randy (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Mon, 5 Jan 1998 16:19:33 -0800

If you read my earlier more detailed proposal you will
see that I put the redirection mechanism into IPP, so
it is not dependent on HTTP-specific redirection
mechanisms.

Randy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl-Uno Manros [SMTP:cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 4:00 PM
> To: ipp@pwg.org
> Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com; manchala@cp10.es.xerox.com;
> xriley@cp10.es.xerox.com
> Subject: IPP> MOD - Outside the box resolution for the two URIs
> issue
>
>
> I got some private feedback from Larry Mainter on this issue, which
> triggered some further thoughts that I wanted to share with you.
>
> I like Bob's approach because it provides the functionality within
> IPP,
> while Randy's approach might be easier to implement, but makes us
> dependent
> on HTTP functionality for redirects, which may not be available in
> other
> transfer protocols.
>
> Maybe we should think outside the box instead. Larry asked why do we
> limit
> ourselves to TWO URIs? Thinking about extensibility, I think Larry
> has a
> point.
>
> If we want to add a new mapping for IPP on top of HTTP NG or whatever
> and
> the IPP server can support both that and the current HTTP and HTTPS
> mappings, where do we put the additional URI in the IPP protocol? If
> instead, we made the Printer URI a MULTI-VALUED attribute, we could
> add any
> number of future transfer protocols for the same IPP Printer without
> having
> to revise our model. The IPP client would probably need to understand
> the
> scheme part of the URI, but could then choose any of the offered URI
> alternatives, with more or less security etc. We would probably need
> to add
> some rules about whether the same transfer protocol has to be used for
> a
> particular IPP Job, or if the client can use different ones, provided
> that
> the same level of security is maintained. Another question is whether
> the
> IPP Server would always return Job URIs with the same scheme as the
> one
> with which the job request was submitted. A consequence of this
> propoal is
> that directory entries might have multiple URIs for the same IPP
> Printer.
>
> Is this approach worth further discussion?
>
> Carl-Uno
>
>
>
>
> Carl-Uno Manros
> Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
> 701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
> Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
> Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com