IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)

RE: IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)

Turner, Randy (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Fri, 13 Mar 1998 12:11:15 -0800

I'm curious why the existing binary encoding is inherently dependent on
chunking?....I thought chunking was a part of the transport of the
encoding. I don't think there is anything inherent (or explicitly
referenced) by the current encoding that involves chunking. You're right
that another transport would have to solve the chunking problem, but
it's a TRANSPORT issue, so this would naturally fall into a transport
mapping document. If there was a bit or byte that specified HTTP
chunking within the binary encoding, then this is a different story.

Randy

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Herriot [SMTP:robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 12:06 PM
To: Turner, Randy; 'ipp@pwg.org'
Subject: Re: IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)

I think we had this discussion in Austin as part of Tom's
proposal. We
decided to change the name of the protocol document. Its new
name is
"Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Encoding and Transport". We
decided not to
split the two documents.

Although the IPP encoding is, in theory, transport independent.
In fact, it
depends on HTTP chunking. With an alternate transport, we would
have to
solve the chunking problem. It would be more efficient if the
document data
were the only part chunked, but that would require a change to
the encoding
layer.

So, at this point, I don't endorse separating the two documents.

Bob Herriot

At 03:36 PM 3/12/98 , Turner, Randy wrote:
>
>Would anyone have any problem(s) splitting the protocol (not
model)
>document into two documents?
>
>Document 1 would be an encoding document
>Document 2 would describe how to transport the encoding over
HTTP 1.1
>
>?
>
>Randy
>