Henning,
I am copying my response to the IPP mailing list (see below).
Thanks for your comments and suggestions concerning this draft. There
is another related draft describing the requirements for this project under
the name "draft-wright-ipp-req-00.txt" We are scheduled to have a BOF
session in San Jose on Thursday, December 12 at 1:00 - 3:00 pm. If you
can make it there, you will meet the authors and various other people
who have been involved with the project so far. We are trying to get this
established as a formal WG soon after the San Jose meeting.
We already have a mailing list set up and you are welcome to join it, see
details below.
At the end of this mail, I have attached our proposed working group
charter.
Regarding your specific comments:
1. HTTP methods are case-sensitive (HTTP/1.1, Section 5.1.1); thus, your
example needs updating.
Thanks, noted.
2. Wouldn't it make more sense to define a content-type: application/ipp
(or similar), so that the request would be a valid HTTP request? (The
print request is then part of the entity).
We have spent so much time on the semantics (object, attributes,
operations) that we regretfully did not have the HTTP encoding as
coherent and all loose ends tied up as we would like to have had it. This
is the next step. We appreciate your comments. We will have to look at
this.
3. Have you considered the alternative of defining a new method, say,
PRINT, with entity headers appropriate for the new task?
Yes, we did consider this. In speaking with some of the people involved
in HTTP, it was their recommendation to NOT extend the set of HTTP
methods. Do you see any strong benefits to doing so? We were
concerned about forcing a rev of HTTP to support this.
Thanks for your input.
Scott Isaacson
************************************************************
Scott A. Isaacson
Print Services Consulting Engineer
Novell Inc., 122 E 1700 S, Provo, UT 84606
V: (801) 861-7366, (800) 453-1267 x17366
F: (801) 861-4025, E: scott_isaacson at novell.com
W: http://www.novell.com
************************************************************
>>> Henning Schulzrinne <schulzrinne at cs.columbia.edu> 11/29/96
06:06am >>>
Couple of quick remarks on your draft:
- HTTP methods are case-sensitive (HTTP/1.1, Section 5.1.1); thus, your
example needs updating
- Wouldn't it make more sense to define a content-type: application/ipp
(or similar), so that the request would be a valid HTTP request? (The
print request is then part of the entity).
- Have you considered the alternative of defining a new method, say,
PRINT, with entity headers appropriate for the new task?
Thanks.
--
Henning Schulzrinne email: schulzrinne at cs.columbia.edu
Dept. of Computer Science phone: +1 212 939-7042
Columbia University fax: +1 212 666-0140
New York, NY 10027 URL: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
The following text is a draft proposal to the IETF for our WG charter. It
should contain all the info you need to get started.
---
IETF Internet Printing Protocol (ipp) WG
Chair(s):
Carl-Uno Manros <manros at cp10.es.xerox.com>
Applications Area Director(s):
Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>
Harald Alvestrand <Harald.T.Alvestrand at uninett.no>
Area Advisor:
TBD
Mailing List Information:
General Discussion: <ipp at pwg.org>
To Subscribe: <ipp-request at pwg.org>
Archive: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/
Editor:
Scott Isaacson <scott_isaacson at novell.com>
Description of Working Group:
Internet printing involves using Internet technologies and services
to find networked resources, such as printers, and then submit jobs
using those resources.
The goal of this working group is to define a new application level
distributed printing protocol as well as defining naming and service
registration attributes for printing. The protocol shall support a
global, distributed environment where print service users (clients,
applications, drivers, etc.) cooperate and interact with print service
providers (servers, printers, gateways, etc.).
The working group will leverage existing (and emerging) technologies
for: authentication, authorization, privacy, and commercial transactions.
For location of printers, the working group will leverage existing
standards for directories.
The working group shall strive to coordinate its activities with other
printing-related standards bodies.
The new job submission protocol should strive not to preclude any
types of output devices (e.g., fax, printer, gateway). Also, the
working group will define extensibility paths to maximize interoperability
and minimize conflict.
The Internet Printing Protocol will be designed to make use of Web
browsers, HTTP, and LDAP for directory look-ups.
The Internet Printing Protocol is intended to supplant RFC 1179 'Line
Printer Daemon Protocol' as the preferred printing protocol. LPR/LPD
was designed a long time ago with line printers in mind and does not
fit with current needs.
Deliverables and Milestones:
Done - Mailing list and archive
November 1996 - Submit first set of Internet-Drafts
December 1996 - BOF in IETF meeting in San Jose, CA, USA
March 1997 - Submit Internet-Drafts
April 1997 - Review of specification in IETF meeting in Memphis, TN,
USA
May 1997 - At least 2 implemented prototypes
May 1997 - Submit document(s) to the IESG for Proposed Standard
Internet-Drafts:
IPP-requirements: draft-wright-ipp-req-00.txt
IPP-draft: draft-isaacson-ipp-info-00.txt