Sorry, it seems that I misread what was written by you and what was written
by Harry.
If is was you who wrote about the misguided attempt to be fully transport
neutral, you are right, I DO agree with you. However, we will need to
tackle that problem when we try to do the SDP solution... just now I am
grping at straws (maybe another of those European proverbs that not
translate well to English) to get IPP V1.0 out the door.
Carl-Uno
At 05:03 PM 6/4/98 PDT, Jay Martin wrote:
>Carl-Uno,
>
>I'm a bit confused about who you're agreeing with here.
>
>The text that you've quoted is from me, not Harry.
>
>I read Harry's response to my posting as being in
>mild disagreement, citing that the charter claimed
>that IPP was supposed to be a generically usable
>network printing protocol.
>
>Are we to read that you've come to the position that
>maybe IPP should be explicitly relegated for use over
>HTTP, and not attempt to be transport-independent?
>Or did I interpret your message incorrectly?
>
> ...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 --
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Carl-Uno Manros wrote:
>>
>> At 12:48 PM 6/4/98 PDT, Harry Lewis wrote:
>> >Subject: IPP> Why must IPP be transport-independent?
>> >
>> >
>> >After reading Paul Moore's posting (below), it appears
>> >that we are digger ourselves a deeper and deeper hole
>> >to fall into.
>> >
>> >Must IPP be transport-independent?
>> >
>> >I say "No". IPP stands for "Internet Printing Protocol",
>> >not something like "Generic Printing Protocol", or "Universal
>> >Printing Protocol". It was designed for use on the Internet.
>>
>> Harry,
>>
>> I think I start agreeing with you on this one. My recollection is that we
>> got this as part of our discussion to use a MIME part for the encoding.
>> MIME purists have stated that all MIME types MUST be transport independent.
>>
>> I think that having an object that can be mapped to another transport has
>> its virtues, but I was never convinced that it would ever make sense to
>> actually send the "application/ipp" object over email. Alternative
>> transports that make sense to me are things like the emerging HTTP-NG
>> protocol, and that is most likely able to handle URLs the same way as HTTP
>> does today.
>>
>> If somebody REALLY wants to send "application/ipp" over email, then they
>> would need to have an email address in the place where we are using the
>> HTTP URIs anyway, and I expect that such a mailbox would be dedicated to
>> the IPP printer and know what to do with messages it receives. In short,
>> new transport, new addressing scheme.
>>
>> In summary, I think we should remove any redundant URI information in the
>> "application/ipp", it seems to cause more confusion than what it is worth.
>>
>> Carl-Uno
>> Carl-Uno Manros
>> Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
>> 701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
>> Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
>> Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com
>
>
Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com