We wanted to re-use as much as possible of existing protocols, but if you
are prepared to come up with a proposed protocol design for IPP
notifications on straight TCP (without running into various reliability
problems), I am sure we are happy to evaluate it together with other
proposals.
Carl-Uno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Parra [mailto:HPARRA@novell.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 4:23 PM
> To: kugler@us.ibm.com; ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: IPP> NOT - Suggested resolutions to the 27 Issues
>
>
> We've said that IPP Notification would allow printers to use
> "general-purpose" Event Notification Services available to
> them on the network. By not supporting straight TCP
> notification we might be hampering the implementation of this
> requirement. I don't understand why supporting the suggested
> three application-level protocols should preclude us from
> allowing straight TCP subscriptions that can be easily routed
> through network notification services.
>
> -Hugo
>
> >>> <kugler@us.ibm.com> 07/28/99 10:19AM >>>
>
> <918c79ab552bd211a2bd00805f15ce850198e57-@x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es
> .xerox.c
> om> wrote:
> original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/ipp/?start=6060
> > ISSUE 3: For TCP/IP delivery, what about leaving the
> connection open
> > versus having to reestablish a connection for each event? Who
> > specifies: client in subscription, Printer implementation,
> Notification
> > Recipient, Administrator?
> >
> > XR> We believe that we should use existing application
> level protocols
> > for delivering notifications: HTTP, SMTP, and SNMP. These layer on
> > TCP/IP, TCP/IP, and UDP, respectively. We can write a
> simple MIB as a
> > separate RFC that has only the SNMP trap bindings to the IPP
> > notification content.
> >
>
> Good. HTTP/1.1 connections are persistent by default. SMTP
> can deliver
> multiple messages per connection. SNMP, of course, doesn't use
> connections.
>
> -Carl
>
>