If we need a mapping document between PSIS and IPP, then we should
write one as needed.
By the way, hasn't PSIS pretty much passed into relative oblivion?
Also, you included my comments about removing the LPD syntax stuff
from the mapping document. Do you agree or disagree (or don't care)?
...jay
----- Begin Included Message -----
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:43:23 -0700
From: Robert.Herriot@Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Herriot)
To: hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com, jkm@underscore.com
Subject: Re: IPP> PRO - Updated "Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols"
Cc: ipp@pwg.org
> From jkm@underscore.com Tue Jul 15 10:11:10 1997
> Line 298: "...we need to map the LPD query format to IPP attributes."
> What is meant by the "LPD query format"? In LPD, the client asks for
> either the "short" or the "long" version of a query; no further
> granularity is available, right?
>
>
> I think all the LPD syntax stuff in the document is confusing (at best)
> and adds little to the overall value of the document. The syntax is
> described in a different form than that of RFC 1179 (which has no form,
> actually). All that is needed in this mapping document are references
> to the appropriate terms and section numbers of RFC 1179; it should be
> more than sufficient to assume the reader has knowledge of RFC 1179,
> and that this mapping document should not "spoon-feed" the reader.
I was referring to the format of the long and short response which PSIS
but not RFC 1179 specifies.
----- End Included Message -----