IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> SLP 'printer:' template comments

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> SLP 'printer:' template comments

Re: IPP> SLP 'printer:' template comments

kugler@us.ibm.com
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:12:04 -0700

"hugo parra" <hparr-@novell.com> wrote:
Original Article: http://www.egroups.com/list/ipp/?start=5083
> Thank you Ira for clarifying how we intent to use
'natural-language-configured' in the 'printer:' template.
>
> James and Erik beat me to where I was heading. As an SLP_API user, I
know that a natural language must be specified with each SLP registration
and request, independently of the type of service being
registered/searched. It seems to me then that both SLP and IPP have
already conformed with RFC 2277; SLP by requiring the natural language
associated with each SLP request/query (regardless of the template being
used) and IPP by supporting 'natural-language-configured' in its object
model.

IPP also requires "attributes-natural-language" on every request and
response.
"natural-language-configured" is a default that MUST be overridden on every
request. It's only used when a Printer receives a request in a natural
language it doesn't support.

>
> It would appear then that the reason for having
'natural-language-configured' and 'natural-language-supported' in the
'printer:' template is mostly for convenience, so users can get to that
information without making an additional request to the printer (and as I
indicated in my previous message, I question how useful that feature really
is).

IPP doesn't have 'natural-language-supported', only
"generated-natural-language-supported". An IPP Printer MUST accept any
natural language and any Natural Language Override, whether the IPP object
supports that natural language or not.

>
> OK so here are some options I'd like you to consider (1 being my first
choice and 3 my last):
>
> 1. Do away with both attributes 'natural-language-configured' and
'natural-language-supported' in the 'printer:' template.
>
> 2. Keep both attributes but make them optional.
>
> 3. Keep both attributes as mandatory but add 'unknown' as a legal value.
>
> Any takers?
> -Hugo
>