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 [mailto:robert.herriot at Eng.Sun.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 4:38 PM
To: Ira McDonald; imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com; ipp at pwg.org; srvloc at 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