The demux wasn't my idea, I was just clarifying what I thought Jay was
suggesting...however, the URI itself is self-demux'ing. As you move left
to right parsing a URI, you are basically performing a kind of
demultiplexing, with one or more layers each handling a portion of the
URI string. Its not hard to envision any number of demux'ing techniques
using URIs in both HTTP and IPP headers.
Sorry I missed the carnage at the teleconference ;)...hope to see the
minutes.
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Kugler [SMTP:kugler at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 2:50 PM
To: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: Re: RE: IPP> Identifying jobs in requests
>
> I think Jay was talking about a lower-layer demux than what
you are
> talking about. The kind of demux that might be performed by a
> CGI/NSAPI/ISAPI layer, or equivalent...prior to passing the
data to a
> core IPP processing component.
>
> Randy
>
How does placing a URI denoting the target of an IPP request
inside our protocol (as an IPP attribute) facilitate this kind of demux?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Kugler [SMTP:kugler at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 11:21 AM
> To: ipp at pwg.org
> Subject: Re: IPP> Identifying jobs in requests
>
> >
> > The demultiplexing front-end is not IPP, and is
therefore some
> type of
> > "transport-helper". While the IPP protocol document
must stand
> on its own,
> > independent of any such transport, and therefore
identifiers
> within the
> > protocol would still be mandatory ( Of course, my
argument is
> entirely
> > based upon the WG's decision that IPP must be
transport
> independent ).
> >
> > Randy
> >
>
> Randy-
>
> If the demultiplexing front-end is not IPP, how is it
able to
> read IPP attributes?
>
> - Carl
> >
> > ----------
> > > From: Jay Martin <jkm at underscore.com>
> > > To: Randy Turner <rturner at sharplabs.com>
> > > Cc: ipp at pwg.org
> > > Subject: Re: IPP> Identifying jobs in requests
> > > Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 9:32 AM
> > >
> > > Randy Turner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We use URIs to identify IPP objects. If we want
IPP to
> maintain
> > > > transport-independence, then we will always need
to have
> some type of
> > valid
> > > > URI denoting the target of an IPP request inside
our
> protocol.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. Sure, in the case of a
demultiplexing
> front-end,
> > > it would be necessary to have the target embedded in
the
> protocol
> > > message, but not necessary for single-Printer
> implementations.
> > >
> > > I don't have a problem with embedding the target URI
in the
> PDU,
> > > but if we get into a big mess with regard to
reconciling a
> similar
> > > target in the outer/lower transport level (eg,
HTTP), then
> we might
> > > want to consider pulling out the embedded target
URI.
> > >
> > > It would be nice to hear from others on this topic.
> > >
> > > ...jay
> > >
> > >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -- JK Martin | Email:
jkm at underscore.com
> --
> > > -- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603)
889-7000
> --
> > > -- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603)
889-2699
> --
> > > -- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web:
> http://www.underscore.com --
> > >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
>