> From walker at dazel.com Fri Sep 12 16:34:10 1997
> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 15:40:39 -0500
> From: Jim Walker <walker at dazel.com>
> To: Robert Herriot <Robert.Herriot at Eng.Sun.COM>
> Cc: ipp at pwg.org> Subject: Re: IPP>MOD Why use Job-Id instead of Job-URI for Jobs?
>> Some comments on these IPP<->LPD gateway discussions...
>> ... I agree with Scott that the gateway between IPP and legacy
> systems should *not* be the driving force behind our design.
I remember discussions in June where this was addressed at length.
The results of the discussion was that there was overwhelming need
to have LPD/Microsoft/Whatever be able to gateway to IPP.
There was almost no indication that the opposite (IPP to whatever)
was desireable, necessary, etc. This was on the basis that the newer
protocols/facilities may have options/capabilities that are impossible to
support in the older ones.
Now you may be able to have users RESUBMIT jobs to the older systems,
but note that this is not the same as having an IPP system translate
them.
>> ... There seems to be a base assumption that mapping a from a
> LPD job identifier (integer) to an IPP job URL is a difficult
> problem. I would assert that it is not. We have a gateway
> that has been in existence for four years now that solves this
> exact problem: it maps from the LPD job identifiers to an opaque
> printer-independent job identifier.
>> And folks, it wasn't that hard to do.
>> later...
> ...walker
>> --
> Jim Walker <walker at dazel.com>
> System Architect/DAZEL Wizard
> DAZEL Corporation, Austin, TX
>