Can anyone provide some additional information on these items as
listed in the posted minutes?
> 1. Should we suggest a specific URL format as the default for printers
> (www.printers.company.com or www.company.com/printers or something
> else)?
What was the outcome of this idea? Was the consensus pro or con?
> 4. Is HTTP a "stop-gap" solution? If so, when should we start talking
> about a longer term solution?
HTTP as a "stop-gap" solution? Now *that* is pretty scary. Can the
proponents of this belief comment further?
It is conceivable that if an HTTP-based solution could be knocked off
in very short order, then it may satisfy the need for an immediate,
stop-gap solution. However, given the obvious amount of effort required
to completely spec an HTTP-based approach, one would think it had better
have long term viability, no?
> 5. Some of Randy's proposals would require some changes to the Model
> document.
It would be interesting to see a quick rundown on exactly what the group
believes would have to change in the Model to accomodate Randy's proposal.
(If someone has the time, that would be nice to see.)
> Protocol Work Items and Owners:
>
> Document a transport protocol and provide information as to why that is a good
> choice
> * HTTP 1.1 (Steve Zilles, Roger Debry)
> * HTTP Subset (Randy Turner)
> * IPP (Paul Moore)
This list is a bit confusing. That is, how is it that "IPP" is listed
as a possible transport protocol? Isn't IPP considered a
session/application protocol that can sit on top of certain transport
protocols? What is the thinking here?
Thanks in advance to all responders.
...jay