IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> NOT - Suggested resolutions to the 27 Is

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> NOT - Suggested resolutions to the 27 Is

Re: IPP> NOT - Suggested resolutions to the 27 Is

kugler@us.ibm.com
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:20:50 -0700

<37a19d20.64ae693-@easysw.com> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/ipp/?start=6092
> Hugo Parra wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> The problem is that using a direct TCP or UDP type of connection does
> not allow any kind of error checking, and makes receiving multiple
> messages over the same link potentially dangerous.
>
> There is talk of defining a (simple) alternate transport protocol for
> IPP that can be used over things other than TCP/IP (in fact, I think
> it's one of the things on the new IPP charter?), and that would
> probably allow a direct TCP or UDP connection for notification.
>

Hey, what ever happened to HTTP-NG? That would have provided an
excellent solution to these problems. When I last looked at it, it had
a general application-level protocol that was like a peer-to-peer OO
RPC.