IPP> Revised SLP 'printer:' template for comments

IPP> Revised SLP 'printer:' template for comments

Manros, Carl-Uno B cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com
Mon Jan 4 20:02:54 EST 1999


Bob,
 
I welcome this attempt to get a simpler SLP solution and in practice I think
we will find few printers that have more than one URI.
However, your assumption in a) that you could use 'printer-name' to find out
whether a printer has several URIs does not
seem correct. There is no guarantee that "printer-name' values are unique,
even within the same domain (at least not according to IPP).
 
Carl-Uno

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Herriot [mailto:robert.herriot at Eng.Sun.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 4:38 PM
To: Ira McDonald; imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com; ipp at pwg.org; srvloc at srvloc.org
Subject: Re: IPP> Revised SLP 'printer:' template for comments


At our Tucson meeting, the IPP group agreed with James Kempf that there 
should be a separate SLP entry for each URI and that the URI associated with

the entry would be the printer's URI.  Ira, I know that you disagreed with 
this direction.

If we stay with this decision, it implies to me that there is 
   a)  no need for the 'printer-uri-supported' attribute in the template. It
can be 
        determined by finding all URI's containing a 'printer-name' with a
particular value.
   b)  'uri-security-supported' contains the security supported for the
associated URI and
        not for other URIs associated with a printer.
   c)  the complexity of two parallel attributes is eliminated.

Bob Herriot







More information about the Ipp mailing list