Subject: Re: IPP> Re: IPP over TCP

From: "Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 96 08:43:08 MST

Excellent, Randy!

>Then there is the compromise solution: Do the spec and make it
>transport independent (1 document), and then publish multiple
>documents, each outlining a mapping to a specific transport so
>the method is "standardized" for interoperability purposes
>(documents 2 through n ), where 'n' is the number of transport
>mappings we want to "standardize".
>
>Another set of documents could also include a specification for
>locating IPP services via one or more directory service
>implementations.

etc...

Harry Lewis.

---

From: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 20:58:06 -0500

After hearing the (sometimes heated) discussion at the recent IPP BOF,
I also agree with Randy that we should probably focus on MIME encodings
first, then grapple with the various transport layer mappings.

Many people in attendance at the BOF had a *serious* problem with the
use of HTTP to effect printing, citing such reasons as the lack of
HTTP efficiency as a standard application protocol, and that using
HTTP was "gross overkill" for the problem at hand.  However, all such
persons that echoed one or more complaints about HTTP were actually
in favor of a generalized MIME-based approach.

	...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--  JK Martin               |  Email:   [email-masked]          --
--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              --
--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              --
--  Hudson, NH 03015-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------