IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP>PRO - comments on transport mapping document

Re: IPP>PRO - comments on transport mapping document

Scott Isaacson (SISAACSON@novell.com)
Wed, 28 May 1997 17:06:13 -0600

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Scott Isaacson: "Re: IPP> MOD - new model document (QUESTION on Job"
Previous message: Harry Lewis: "Re: IPP> RE: Should 'pending' be a mandatory state or not?"
Maybe in reply to: Roger K Debry: "IPP>PRO - comments on transport mapping document"

>>> Roger K Debry <rdebry@us.ibm.com> 05/28 3:39 PM >>>
>
> (7) In section 3.3 you suggest that each SendDocument carries exactly
> one document. I thought from the minutes if the San Diego meeting that
> this notion was rejected. I thought that there would be one SendDocument
> operation and it could carry multiple documents. I'm not saying that I
> diagree with you approcah, I actually like it better, but I didn't think
this'
> was consistent with agreements made last week.

I understood that it was one document per send-document.

Scott

Next message: Scott Isaacson: "Re: IPP> MOD - new model document (QUESTION on Job"
Previous message: Harry Lewis: "Re: IPP> RE: Should 'pending' be a mandatory state or not?"
Maybe in reply to: Roger K Debry: "IPP>PRO - comments on transport mapping document"