We've said that IPP Notification would allow printers to use "general-purpose" Event Notification Services available to them on the network. By not supporting straight TCP notification we might be hampering the implementation of this requirement. I don't understand why supporting the suggested three application-level protocols should preclude us from allowing straight TCP subscriptions that can be easily routed through network notification services.
-Hugo
>>> <kugler at us.ibm.com> 07/28/99 10:19AM >>>
<918c79ab552bd211a2bd00805f15ce850198e57- at x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es.xerox.c
om> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/ipp/?start=6060
> ISSUE 3: For TCP/IP delivery, what about leaving the connection open
> versus having to reestablish a connection for each event? Who
> specifies: client in subscription, Printer implementation,
Notification
> Recipient, Administrator?
>> XR> We believe that we should use existing application level protocols
> for delivering notifications: HTTP, SMTP, and SNMP. These layer on
> TCP/IP, TCP/IP, and UDP, respectively. We can write a simple MIB as a
> separate RFC that has only the SNMP trap bindings to the IPP
> notification content.
>
Good. HTTP/1.1 connections are persistent by default. SMTP can deliver
multiple messages per connection. SNMP, of course, doesn't use
connections.
-Carl