> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ira McDonald [mailto:imcdonal@sdsp.mc.xerox.com]
> Sent: den 14 januari 1999 02:45
> To: ipp@pwg.org; srvloc@srvloc.org
> Subject: SLP - Summary of next 'printer:' template proposal
>
>
> Hi folks, Wednesday (13
> January 1999)
>
> This note seeks concensus before a next revision of the SLPv2
> 'printer:'
> template. PLEASE send your opinion to the IPP mailing list.
My last mail cc:'d to both ipp@pwg.org and srvloc@srvloc.org seems
to have bounced back and forth between the lists so I'm only
sending this to the IPP list.
In your latest 'printer:' template draft the notion of having only
one SLP entry with several URI's listed in the
'printer-uri-supported' attribute is still there. In an earlier
mail from Robert Herriot (included below), it sounded as if you've
decided to go with separate SLP entries for each URI. What is the
rationale for staying with one entry per printer?
/Mikael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Herriot [mailto:robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM]
> Sent: den 5 januari 1999 01:38
> 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
>
--simple boundary--