Hi folks,
The following two SLP documents are of significant interest to
IPP WG members. The first addresses vendor extensions to the
SLPv2 protocol itself. The second addresses attribute list
extensions to SLP templates (i.e., vendor private extensions).
The second is of particular applicability to the SLP 'printer:'
template we are reviewing at the IPP WG Telecon tomorrow.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald (consulting architect at Sharp Labs America)
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Guttman [mailto:Erik.Guttman at germany.sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 1:03 AM
To: Todd Rupper
Cc: srvloc at srvloc.org; erik.guttman at germany.sun.com
Subject: Re: WG LAST CALL notices
> Erik,
>> I haven't seen the Vendor Extensions Draft or the Attribute List
Extensions.
> I don't see them on the working group page.
>> Am I looking in the wrong place?
>
Todd,
Since SVRLOC is on the short track to completing its charter (really! :)
new work on SLP is being done as individual submissions. The draft that
I posted the WG last call on is an individual submission (by me). You
can obtain the drafts at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-guttman-svrloc-vendor-ext-00.txthttp://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-guttman-slpv2-attrlist-ext-01.txt
Since the mailing list was sick (its fixed now!) the WG LAST CALL notice
was delayed. For that reason, the WG LAST CALL will go through Feb 25
not the previously mentioned Feb 21.
Thanks everyone for reviewing these documents. They will hopefully be
advanced to Informational RFC. They are extensions to the base protocol
which would significantly add to its scalability and extensibility in
my opinion.
Erik
> The following document is entering Working Group Last Call. It is an
> individual submission, but it relates to the work of the SVRLOC WG.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Internet Engineering Task Froce Erik Guttman
> INTERNET DRAFT Sun Microsystems
> 8 December 1999
> Expires in six months
>> Vendor Extensions for Service Location Protocol, Version 2
> draft-guttman-svrloc-vendor-ext-00.txt
>> Abstract
>> The Service Location Protocol, Version 2 [1] contains a number of
> features which are left up to vendors. This document describes how
> each of these features can be used safely (with no possibility of
> name collisions). This document also describes how vendors can
> extend the protocol safely without requiring any IETF standardization
> work. Finally, this document defines a new extension to the SLPv2:
> The Vendor Opaque extension.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Please send comments to the srvloc at srvloc.org mailing list in the
> next two weeks. If there are no comments by January 21 which
> necessitate revision, this document will be submitted to the
> IESG for consideration to promote it to an Informational RFC.
>> Erik Guttman
> SVRLOC WG Chair
>>