IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)

RE: IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)

Turner, Randy (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:38:15 -0800

Yes, this is what I am doing in creating a host-to-device version of
IPP, I noticed from a design perspective that its clearer if the
encoding and transport are isolated into separate documents.

Randy

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Martin [SMTP:jkm@underscore.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 4:28 PM
To: Turner, Randy
Cc: 'ipp@pwg.org'
Subject: Re: IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)

If the notion of "IPP-over-anything-other-than-HTTP" is ever
going
to be proven, then splitting the doc into two components is a
great
idea.

...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   --


----------------------------------------------------------------------




	Turner, Randy wrote:
	> 
	> This wouldn't be changing any technical specs or
semantics...just an
	> editorial move to isolate functionality. This type of change
would make
	> it easier to address transport issues without affecting the
status or
	> advancement of an encoding specification; and vice-versa. It
would also
	> make it clearer for future IPP-related documents to reference
particular
	> aspects of IPP, without bringing any additional baggage to
have to sort
	> through.
	> 
	> Randy
	> 
	>         -----Original Message-----
	>         From:   Carl-Uno Manros
[SMTP:cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com]
	>         Sent:   Thursday, March 12, 1998 3:44 PM
	>         To:     Turner, Randy; 'ipp@pwg.org'
	>         Subject:        Re: IPP> IPP document set - naming
convention(s)
	> 
	>         At 03:36 PM 3/12/98 PST, Turner, Randy wrote:
	>         >
	>         >Would anyone have any problem(s) splitting the
protocol (not
	> model)
	>         >document into two documents?
	>         >
	>         >Document 1 would be an encoding document
	>         >Document 2 would describe how to transport the
encoding over
	> HTTP 1.1
	>         >
	>         >?
	>         >
	>         >Randy
	>         >
	> 
	>         Why are we getting all these "bright" ideas after the
work is
	> supposed to
	>         be finished? I don't know if we can do the split at
this stage.
	> 
	>         I expect that we could try to negotiate that with the
RFC
	> editor, but it
	>         would mean actually doing another editing run and
insert new
	>         cross-references etc. It would also impact references
in all the
	> other
	>         documents.
	> 
	>         Carl-Uno
	> 
	>         Carl-Uno Manros
	>         Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards -
Xerox
	> Corporation
	>         701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
	>         Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
	>         Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com