>...let Microsoft speak for themselves.
>
>Comments from others on this position?
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
owner-sdp@pwg.org on 05/15/98 09:24:21 AM
Please respond to owner-sdp@pwg.org
To: robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM
cc: sdp@pwg.org
Subject: Re: SDP> Suggestions for discussion at SDP session next week
Bob,
> I just talked with Paul about the requirement for a separate data cha=
nnel.
Given the size, presence and impact Microsoft has in and on the
marketplace, I know I'm not alone in requesting (demanding? begging?)
that Microsoft speak for themselves on this DL regarding requirements
concerns, etc. It's not right that others submit Microsoft's
comments on key requirements...let Microsoft speak for themselves.
Comments from others on this position? Agree? Disagree? Don't care??=
> I think that Paul and I are in agreement that "separate data channel"=
does
> not necessarily mean that an operation gets a separate channel for da=
ta in
> the midst of an IPP/SDP operation. It has at least some elements of t=
he
following.:
>
> a) each operation opens a new socket and gets its own channel, o=
r uses
> an existing socket after the preceding operation has complete=
d.
I read your "a)" item several times, but still come away confused.
That is, I don't see the value or implication of the statement.
Am I missing something here?
Some of us still want to see the use of a separate data
channel for clean, low-overhead transmission of large
amounts of relatively opaque data (ie, job data). This
lesson was learned by the FTP folks many years ago, and
we should learn from that experience.
...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 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
=