IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> NOT - device-to-host events, not end-user events

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> NOT - device-to-host events, not end-user events

Re: IPP> NOT - device-to-host events, not end-user events

Ron Bergman (rbergma@dpc.com)
Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:10:20 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

Tom,

I certainly agree with Jay on this subject. I don't know of any transport
that does not provide some method of flow control. Certainly TCP provides
an excellent flow control mechanism.

I don't recall this requirement discussed in any of the meetings in
Austin. Where did this come from?

Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Jay Martin wrote:

> Tom Hastings wrote:
> >
> > In discussing the host-to-device requirements, we came up with a requirement
> > that the printer be able to feed back information about whether it was
> > choked up with data or needed more data for the current job.
> >
> > So we could have events like:
> >
> > Slow down data transfer
> > Speed up data transfer
>
> This doesn't quite sound right. I mean, flow control should be mandated
> by the underlying transport, right? We certainly don't want to reinvent
> such a key aspect of end-to-end communications within IPP.
>
> ...jay
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- JK Martin | Email: jkm@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 --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>