attachment-0001

<html> Yes, I agree with all of you, but I think that my reply to Carl-Uno has been misinterpreted and a non-issue has become the central point of discussion while my original point has not been discussed at all. I repeat my main point below, namely eliminating 'printer-uri-supported' and changing the meaning of 'uri-security-supported' in the SLP printer template proposed by Ira. At our Tucson meeting, the IPP group agreed with James Kempf that there should be a separate SLP entry for each URI and that the URI associated with the entry would be the printer's URI.  Ira, I know that you disagreed with this direction. If we stay with this decision, it implies to me that there is    a)  no need for the 'printer-uri-supported' attribute in the template. It can be         determined by finding all URI's containing a 'printer-name' with a particular value.    b)  'uri-security-supported' contains the security supported for the associated URI and         not for other URIs associated with a printer.    c)  the complexity of two parallel attributes is eliminated. Bob Herriot At 08:02 PM 1/4/99 , Randy Turner wrote: > >What difference does it make whether or not two SLP entries point to the same >output device? This seems like an administrator issue. If the administrator >wants two entries to point to the same output device, even across directory >contexts (or within directory-local context) then we can support him. On the >other hand, if the administrator wants to uniquely identify all output devices >that are advertised, then he can do that too. > >I'm trying to identify why we care if two different entries point to the same >output device? All we have to do is give the administrator the "ability" to >create uniqueness if they wish. I don't think we need to specify what is >unique >and what isn't. With respect to a directory entry, the "printer-name" is human >understandable, as opposed to the URI string which may or may not be >understandable to a human, but is definitely understandable by client >software. > >Randy > > > > >At 06:44 PM 1/4/99 -0800, Robert Herriot wrote: >> >> I agree that there is no guarantee that "printer-name" values are unique >> even within a domain, but they should be unique as a practical matter so >> that a user can uniquely identify a printer by its "printer-name" instead >of >> the URL, at least in a local context. >> >> There remains the issue of how does anyone determine if two separate SLP >> entries (with different URLs) represent the same output device. I am >> suggesting using a convention that a "printer-name" qualified by a domain >> name and SLP scope uniquely identifies a printer. >> >> >> Bob Herriot >> >> At 05:02 PM 1/4/99 , Manros, Carl-Uno B wrote: >> >Bob, >> > >> >I welcome this attempt to get a simpler SLP solution and in practice I >think >> >we will find few printers that have more than one URI. >> >However, your assumption in a) that you could use 'printer-name' to find >out >> >whether a printer has several URIs does not >> >seem correct. There is no guarantee that "printer-name' values are unique, >> >even within the same domain (at least not according to IPP). >> > >> >Carl-Uno >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Robert Herriot [<a href="mailto:robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM%5D" eudora="autourl">mailto:robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM]</a> >> >Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 4:38 PM >> >To: Ira McDonald; imcdonal@sdsp.mc.xerox.com; ipp@pwg.org; >srvloc@srvloc.org >> >Subject: Re: IPP> Revised SLP 'printer:' template for comments >> > >> > >> >At our Tucson meeting, the IPP group agreed with James Kempf that there >> >should be a separate SLP entry for each URI and that the URI associated >with >> > >> >the entry would be the printer's URI.  Ira, I know that you disagreed with >> >this direction. >> > >> >If we stay with this decision, it implies to me that there is >> >   a)  no need for the 'printer-uri-supported' attribute in the >template. It >> >can be >> >        determined by finding all URI's containing a 'printer-name' with a >> >particular value. >> >   b)  'uri-security-supported' contains the security supported for the >> >associated URI and >> >        not for other URIs associated with a printer. >> >   c)  the complexity of two parallel attributes is eliminated. >> > >> >Bob Herriot >> > > > > >Randy Turner >Sharp Laboratories of America >rturner@sharplabs.com > </html>