IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Revised SLP 'printer:' template for comments

Re: IPP> Revised SLP 'printer:' template for comments

Robert Herriot (robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM)
Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:37:53 -0800

--=====================_-1932250569==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At our Tucson meeting, the IPP group agreed with James Kempf that there
should be a separate SLP entry for each URI and that the URI associated with
the entry would be the printer's URI. Ira, I know that you disagreed with
this direction.

If we stay with this decision, it implies to me that there is
a) no need for the 'printer-uri-supported' attribute in the template. It can
be
determined by finding all URI's containing a 'printer-name' with a
particular value.
b) 'uri-security-supported' contains the security supported for the
associated URI and
not for other URIs associated with a printer.
c) the complexity of two parallel attributes is eliminated.

Bob Herriot

--=====================_-1932250569==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

At our Tucson meeting, the IPP group agreed with James Kempf that there
should be a separate SLP entry for each URI and that the URI associated with
the entry would be the printer's URI.  Ira, I know that you disagreed with
this direction.

If we stay with this decision, it implies to me that there is
   a)  no need for the 'printer-uri-supported' attribute in the template. It can be
        determined by finding all URI's containing a 'printer-name' with a particular value.
   b)  'uri-security-supported' contains the security supported for the associated URI and
        not for other URIs associated with a printer.
   c)  the complexity of two parallel attributes is eliminated.

Bob Herriot


--=====================_-1932250569==_.ALT--