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

Re: IPP> Identifying jobs in requests

Randy Turner (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Wed, 3 Jun 1998 09:42:28 -0700

The demultiplexing front-end is not IPP, and is therefore some type of
"transport-helper". While the IPP protocol document must stand on its own,
independent of any such transport, and therefore identifiers within the
protocol would still be mandatory ( Of course, my argument is entirely
based upon the WG's decision that IPP must be transport independent ).

Randy

----------
> From: Jay Martin <jkm@underscore.com>
> To: Randy Turner <rturner@sharplabs.com>
> Cc: ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: IPP> Identifying jobs in requests
> Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 9:32 AM
>
> Randy Turner wrote:
> >
> > We use URIs to identify IPP objects. If we want IPP to maintain
> > transport-independence, then we will always need to have some type of
valid
> > URI denoting the target of an IPP request inside our protocol.
>
> Not necessarily. Sure, in the case of a demultiplexing front-end,
> it would be necessary to have the target embedded in the protocol
> message, but not necessary for single-Printer implementations.
>
> I don't have a problem with embedding the target URI in the PDU,
> but if we get into a big mess with regard to reconciling a similar
> target in the outer/lower transport level (eg, HTTP), then we might
> want to consider pulling out the embedded target URI.
>
> It would be nice to hear from others on this topic.
>
> ...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 --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------