IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification a

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification a

Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

From: kugler@us.ibm.com
Date: Fri Jun 23 2000 - 10:58:25 EDT

  • Next message: Stuart Rowley: "RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement"

    It's too bad the SEND, SOML, and SAML commands were OPTIONAL in RFC 821.
    Otherwise, the existing SMTP infrastructure would also be an
    instant-message infrastructure, useful for some kinds of notifications.

         -Carl

    Jay Martin <jkm@underscore.com> on 06/22/2000 05:48:51 PM

    Please respond to jkm@underscore.com

    To: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
    cc: ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

    kugler@us.ibm.com wrote:
    >
    > Now, if you want to expand INDP to "IntRAnet Notification Delivery
    > Protocol", I'll buy that.

    Amen, brother. I remain surprised that a generalized Internet
    notification protocol has not yet been developed, given that there
    are *so* many useful applications that could use it.

         ...jay



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 11:06:37 EDT