IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipp-protocol-06.txt

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipp-protocol-06.txt

Re: IPP> I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipp-protocol-06.txt

Carl Kugler (kugler@us.ibm.com)
16 Jul 1998 17:17:32 -0000

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Internet Printing
> Protocol Working Group of the IETF.
> Title : Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Encoding and Transport
> Author(s) : R. Turner, R. Herriot, S. Butler, P. Moore
> Filename : draft-ietf-ipp-protocol-06.txt
> Pages : 33
> Date : 06-Jul-98
> A URL for the Internet-Draft is:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-protocol-06.txt

This document says:

>3. The URI in the HTTP layer is either relative or absolute and is used by the HTTP server to route the HTTP request to the correct resource relative to that HTTP server.

This "resource" is either an IPP Printer or a Job, right?

>The HTTP server need not be aware of the URI within the operation request.
>4. Once the HTTP server resource begins to process the HTTP request, it might get the reference to the appropriate IPP Printer object from either the HTTP URI (using to the context of the HTTP server for relative URLs) or from the URI within the operation request; the choice is up to the implementation.

Once the Printer or Job ("the HTTP server resource") has begun to process the job, why would it need a reference to an appropriate IPP Printer object?

Implementation question: the server is REQUIRED to check for the presence of target URI operation attributes in every request (and respond with client-error-bad-request if not found) but is otherwise free to ignore target op. atts.? The Request-URI and target URLs might not be literally identical although they MUST both reference the same IPP object; however the server isn't required to verify this?

- Carl

Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/ipp/?start=4062
Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/