But if the Printer object and Device object can represent fan-in, so that
the Printer object to Device object is many-to-one, then the "printer-name"
in the Printer object cannot represent the device name, since presumably
each Printer object should have a unique "printer-name" at least in the same
local area.
If we decide to represent fan-in, then we would want to add a "device-name"
attribute to the Device object. Then it would be the "device-name" that
maps to the prtGeneralPrinterName in the Printer MIB, correct?
We can put a note that if a Printer object does not have an associated (or
contained) Device object, then the Printer object's "printer-name" maps to
the 'prtGeneralPrinterName' in the Printer MIB. Ok?
What does the possibility of fan-in do to our SLP template?
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Ira Mcdonald [mailto:imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 16:56
To: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> OPS - Set deivied into Set2 Printer...[devices]
Hi Tom,
In the previous (February) and most recent (October) drafts
of the SLP 'printer:' template (for service discovery),
I showed IPP 'printer-name' as equivalent to Printer MIB v2's
'prtGeneralPrinterName' which is CERTAINLY a device name,
since the Printer MIB instruments the 'lump of metal'.
I like your idea that an IPP Printer either contains (as
Interpreters) or is ONE-to-ONE associated with an
IPP Device. If so IPP 'printer-name' is the same as
'device-name'.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc