IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> New IPP Model Document

RE: IPP> New IPP Model Document

Turner, Randy (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Fri, 29 May 1998 15:06:25 -0700

Absolutely, I see the advantage of having the IPP information take
precedence, I'm just not sure of the impact of having the two headers
(HTTP and IPP-body) be different, and actually getting this to work in a
CGI/NSAPI/ISAPI-based implementation.

The generic web server will dispatch to the HTTP header-specified URI
(I'm assuming, someone correct me if this is not the case). Once this
dispatch occurs, the target in the HTTP header better be able to handle
whatever is coming in the application/ipp body part. In this scenario,
its too late to apply any precedence.

Has someone identified a case where the two headers have to be
different? (I may have missed some email...)

Randy

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Martin [SMTP:jkm@underscore.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 1998 2:51 PM
To: Turner, Randy
Cc: ipp@pwg.org; Puru Bish
Subject: Re: IPP> New IPP Model Document

Randy,

> This may be a difficult requirement to meet if an IPP
implementation is
> built as an extension to a generic web server (like Apache).

Are you sure about this? I mean, I can see you point to
a certain extent, but wouldn't it be advantageous for an
IPP server implemented as a front-end on a generic platform
to be used as a multiplexor to several Printers and Jobs?

On the other hand, if the HTTP request header takes precedent,
then why are we specifying printer-uri/job-uri at all at the
IPP protocol level? Aren't we asking for trouble when the
HTTP request header and the corresponding IPP attributes don't
match (with regard to interoperability)?

...jay


----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com

--
	--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000

--
	--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699

--
	--  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:
http://www.underscore.com   --
	
----------------------------------------------------------------------




	Turner, Randy wrote:
	> 
	> This may be a difficult requirement to meet if an IPP
implementation is
	> built as an extension to a generic web server (like Apache).
	> 
	> Randy
	> 
	>         -----Original Message-----
	>         From:   Jay Martin [SMTP:jkm@underscore.com]
	>         Sent:   Friday, May 29, 1998 2:34 PM
	>         To:     ipp@pwg.org
	>         Cc:     Puru Bish
	>         Subject:        Re: IPP> New IPP Model Document
	> 
	>         After thinking about this, I tend to agree with Puru's
	>         statement:
	> 
	>         >From "Tom Hastings"
	>         >
	>         > :: In fact, the HTTP request header URI, if persent,
takes
	> precedence"
	>         > (over printer-uri/job-uri operation attributes).
	>         >
	>         > I think it should  be the other way around. I feel
the
	>         > printer-uri/job-uri, supplied by IPP client, should
have
	> higher
	>         > precedence to an IPP server than the HTTP header
URI.
	> 
	>                 ...jay
	> 
	> 
	>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
	>         --  JK Martin               |  Email:
jkm@underscore.com
	> --
	>         --  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000
	> --
	>         --  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699
	> --
	>         --  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:
	> http://www.underscore.com   --
	> 
	>
----------------------------------------------------------------------