Carl Kugler wrote:
>
> Jay Martin wrote:
> > Carl Kugler wrote:
> >
> > > But the final decision was that the HTTP Request-URI and the embedded
> > > "printer-uri" MUST be the SAME. Therefore the IPP Object that receives
> > > the request must be the target.
> >
> > Did we actually come to a final decision? I didn't read that we had.
> > (Maybe I'm missing a message or two on this subject?)
> >
> In http://www.findmail.com/list/ipp/mg771994797.html, Robert Herriot wrote:
>
> > Randy suggests that the value of job-uri/printer-uri could differ from
> > the request-uri on the HTTP Request-Line, but the model has no such concept.
> > So unless there are strong arguments to the contrary, the protocol document
> > will state that the request-uri has the same value as the printer-uri/job-uri
> > in the operation.
>
> Then Randy agreed, and the thread ended.
Ok, since no one followed up after that, I guess Herriot's
statement stands. No problem.
But what happens if the two URIs *do* differ?
I think we need some language in the document
so developers can do the right thing.
All of the recent talk about proxies rewriting
the request-uri has me concerned whether we will
indeed see quite a few cases in which the two
URIs are not the same (and then what?).
...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 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------