On 5/24, I posted a comment on that http: sentence:
I have changed the following sentence:
-- An IPP Client shall only use 'http:' URI which
-- include explicit ports (IPP standard is 631).
which sounds like you MUST use the 'http:' scheme. I have replaced it with:
-- If a URI contains the 'http:' scheme, it MUST
-- have an explicit port.
and reposted the entire proposal text with the above change.
How does that sentence rewrite look to you?
From: Ira McDonald [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 19:30
To: David_Kellerman@nls.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: PMP> Proposed text for chIPP job submission channel to be
added to the draft Printer MIB
Thanks for looking at our proposal for an IPP channel
in the Printer MIB. Yes, it does result in multiple
IPP channels if multiple authentication or security
regimes are supported. We (guessed) this would be
considered simpler in the MIB than the IPP alternative.
In IPP/1.1, there are three parallel ordered multi-valued
These would result in one VERY large channel info entry
(which wouldn't really work with MIB limits on string
lengths). So we opted for multiple channel entries.
The conformance requirements around the four channel
attributes were specifically sync'd up with the latest
discussion on IPP WG Telecons, so we think it's pretty
close - Tom has pointed out a bad sentence on 'http:'
and explicit port numbers - I'm pondering rewrite or
- Ira McDonald (outside consultant at Xerox)