IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> NOT - Suggested resolutions to the 27 Issues

Re: IPP> NOT - Suggested resolutions to the 27 Issues

kugler@us.ibm.com
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:19:54 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Farrell, Lee: "IPP> July Minutes"
Previous message: harryl@us.ibm.com: "IPP> Re: PMP> Pull Print channel information"

<918c79ab552bd211a2bd00805f15ce850198e57-@x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es.xerox.c
om> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/ipp/?start=6060
> ISSUE 3: For TCP/IP delivery, what about leaving the connection open
> versus having to reestablish a connection for each event? Who
> specifies: client in subscription, Printer implementation,
Notification
> Recipient, Administrator?
>
> XR> We believe that we should use existing application level protocols
> for delivering notifications: HTTP, SMTP, and SNMP. These layer on
> TCP/IP, TCP/IP, and UDP, respectively. We can write a simple MIB as a
> separate RFC that has only the SNMP trap bindings to the IPP
> notification content.
>

Good. HTTP/1.1 connections are persistent by default. SMTP can deliver
multiple messages per connection. SNMP, of course, doesn't use
connections.

-Carl

Next message: Farrell, Lee: "IPP> July Minutes"
Previous message: harryl@us.ibm.com: "IPP> Re: PMP> Pull Print channel information"