IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Identifying jobs in requests

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Identifying jobs in requests

Re: IPP> Identifying jobs in requests

Carl Kugler (kugler@us.ibm.com)
2 Jun 1998 23:26:47 -0000

> I think that we are finally getting to the heart of this issue, namely
> that the protocol currently puts the URI of the operation's target object
> in the Request-Line of the HTTP operation, and it is not in the
> application/ipp message body.
>
> I think that I am hearing both Randy and Paul say that they think that
> the target job or printer URI should be a parameter in the application/ipp
> message body. Am I right in my understanding?
>
> Bob Herriot
>

I think this is actually a bit of a jump from the original proposal in

> > From rturner@sharplabs.com Thu Jul 17 17:35:23 1997
> >
> > Paul Moore wrote:
> >
> > > Not the issue. I do not object to using URI as job identifiers - I
> > > object to not giving the job identifier in a job specifc request.
> > >
> > > To restate - when I do a canceljob operation I do not supply a job
> > > identifier - the target job is implicit in the transport endpoint -
> > > this
> > > ties us to a transport.
> >
> > Ok, I think we're in violent agreement here....I agree that the
> > operandsof an IPP operation should not be implied by any transport-level
> > information;
> > especially if we plan on moving IPP to other transports...
> >
> > Randy
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Randy Turner [SMTP:rturner@sharplabs.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 1997 5:05 PM
> > > > To: Paul Moore
> > > > Cc: 'JK Martin'; ipp@pwg.org
> > > > Subject: Re: IPP> Identifying jobs in requests
> > > >
> > > > Paul Moore wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I mean that not using jobids at all (which is what we do at
> > > present)
> > > > > ties us to HTTP.
> > > >
> > > > In the model document, job identifiers are URLs. If we have pushed
> > > > URLs
> > > > out of themain body of the protocol up into the transport layer,
> > > then
> > > > this is a mistake. Job identifiers
> > > > belong within the application/ipp body, and, according to the model
> > > > document, object
> > > > identifiers are in URL format. Also, the use of URL/URI strings as
> > > > object identifiers in
> > > > and of itself does not tie us to any one transport mechanism.
> > > >
> > > > Randy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In the current model a cancel job is done by posting a cancel
> > > > > operation
> > > > > to the job URL. No job id is sent, it is implied in the transport
> > > > > endpoint.
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: JK Martin [SMTP:jkm@underscore.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 1997 1:45 PM
> > > > > > To: Paul Moore
> > > > > > Cc: ipp@pwg.org
> > > > > > Subject: RE: IPP> Identifying jobs in requests
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > also using URLs to imply the job id means that we are tied to
> > > a
> > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > transport - something we tried to avoid. If we were to use ,
> > > > say,
> > > > > > raw IP
> > > > > > > then you would need to assign an IP port to each job or
> > > > something
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this really true? Do you mean we would be tying ourselves to
> > >
> > > > > HTTP
> > > > > > by using a URL as a job ID?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would seem that just because we choose the use the syntax and
> > >
> > > > > > semantics of a URL doesn't mean we necessarily tie ourselves to
> > > > > HTTP,
> > > > > > right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...jay
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ----- End Included Message -----
>
>
>