I agree that there is no guarantee that "printer-name" values are unique
even within a domain, but they should be unique as a practical matter so
that a user can uniquely identify a printer by its "printer-name" instead of
the URL, at least in a local context.
There remains the issue of how does anyone determine if two separate SLP
entries (with different URLs) represent the same output device. I am
suggesting using a convention that a "printer-name" qualified by a domain
name and SLP scope uniquely identifies a printer.
Bob Herriot
At 05:02 PM 1/4/99 , Manros, Carl-Uno B wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I welcome this attempt to get a simpler SLP solution and in practice I think
>we will find few printers that have more than one URI.
>However, your assumption in a) that you could use 'printer-name' to find out
>whether a printer has several URIs does not
>seem correct. There is no guarantee that "printer-name' values are unique,
>even within the same domain (at least not according to IPP).
>
>Carl-Uno
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Herriot [mailto:robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM]
>Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 4:38 PM
>To: Ira McDonald; imcdonal@sdsp.mc.xerox.com; ipp@pwg.org; srvloc@srvloc.org
>Subject: Re: IPP> Revised SLP 'printer:' template for comments
>
>
>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
>
--=====================_-1924651703==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
I agree that there is no guarantee that
"printer-name" values are unique
--=====================_-1924651703==_.ALT--
even within a domain, but they should be unique as a practical matter so
that a user can uniquely identify a printer by its
"printer-name" instead of
the URL, at least in a local context.
There remains the issue of how does anyone determine if two separate SLP
entries (with different URLs) represent the same output device. I am
suggesting using a convention that a "printer-name" qualified
by a domain
name and SLP scope uniquely identifies a printer.
Bob Herriot
At 05:02 PM 1/4/99 , Manros, Carl-Uno B wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I welcome this attempt to get a simpler SLP solution and in practice
I think
>we will find few printers that have more than one URI.
>However, your assumption in a) that you could use 'printer-name' to
find out
>whether a printer has several URIs does not
>seem correct. There is no guarantee that "printer-name' values
are unique,
>even within the same domain (at least not according to IPP).
>
>Carl-Uno
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Herriot
[mailto:robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM]
>Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 4:38 PM
>To: Ira McDonald; imcdonal@sdsp.mc.xerox.com; ipp@pwg.org;
srvloc@srvloc.org
>Subject: Re: IPP> Revised SLP 'printer:' template for
comments
>
>
>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
>