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

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