SDP Mail Archive: Re: SDP> Suggestions for discussion at SDP session next week

Re: SDP> Suggestions for discussion at SDP session next week

Jay Martin (
Fri, 15 May 1998 11:18:10 -0400


> I just talked with Paul about the requirement for a separate data channel.

Given the size, presence and impact Microsoft has in and on the
marketplace, I know I'm not alone in requesting (demanding? begging?)
that Microsoft speak for themselves on this DL regarding requirements
concerns, etc. It's not right that others submit Microsoft's
comments on key requirements...let Microsoft speak for themselves.

Comments from others on this position? Agree? Disagree? Don't care??

> I think that Paul and I are in agreement that "separate data channel" does
> not necessarily mean that an operation gets a separate channel for data in
> the midst of an IPP/SDP operation. It has at least some elements of the following.:
> a) each operation opens a new socket and gets its own channel, or uses
> an existing socket after the preceding operation has completed.

I read your "a)" item several times, but still come away confused.
That is, I don't see the value or implication of the statement.
Am I missing something here?

Some of us still want to see the use of a separate data
channel for clean, low-overhead transmission of large
amounts of relatively opaque data (ie, job data). This
lesson was learned by the FTP folks many years ago, and
we should learn from that experience.


-- JK Martin | Email: --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: --