>In case we do get time to:
>At 07:43 06/10/1998 PDT, Carl-Uno Manros wrote:
>>If we end up with time on our hands, we can always devote it to debate
>>if we keep URLs in application/ipp :-)
I'm not sure how/whether removing these "printer-uri" and "job-uri"
>operation attribute targets from the application/ipp MIME type requests
>affects client communication with proxies in which the http URIs get
>changed from absolute to relative in the HTTP header. But it seems like
>there might be no problem, since HTTP request headers are the province
>of the transport, which includes proxies and they can do what ever they
>like, including changing absolute URIs to relative URIs. Such changes
>only affect getting the message to the recipient. The recipient only
>looks at the application/ipp operation attributes to know which printer
>or job is really the intended object instance.
I was addressing this scenario in my previous e-mail today,
The job-id will be an operation attribute, so job addressing within a
printer should be
taken care of.
To address the printer, we would have to decide on one of two rules :
1) * the entity processing the request is representing only one printer and
no additional attribute is necessary
2) * or as Tom mentions above, printer-name should assist in addressing the
2) seems more flexible.