Subject: IPP>PRO revised agenda

From: [email-masked] (Robert Herriot)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 20:32:39 -0800

The agenda is still rather loose. Here are the ideas that I put forth along
with other suggestions further down in this email:

At the moment, I would say that the agenda should be driven by the
main outstanding issues.  The ones that we have inherited from the
main group do not seem to be high level issues that we need to
solve immediately.  I have written down some high level issues that
I think we need to resolve.

I would suggest that our agenda be to resolve these issues.

If anyone has other ideas about the agenda or additional issues, please send
them by 5pm PST Thursday 3/6.

Issues:

   Do we first define a generic mapping (e.g. MIME) which in turn is mapped 
   to one or more protocols? If not MIME, then what?

   What are the specifics of this mapping? 

      Mapping of operations and parameters to protocol

      Mapping of attributes and values to protocol.

   Is HTML supported as a separate generic mapping?

   Is one protocol HTTP?

   Is there another, such as over a socket.

>From Randy:

Another philosophical discussion we need to think about is whether
or not we allow the IPP model to dictate the type of transport
we would like to use, or do we constrain the IPP model document
to preferred transport mechanisms.

>From Carl-Uno:

a  couple of issues which I consider to be high level and which I would like
to get tackled are:

1) How difficult or easy is it to take abstract operations from the model
and break them up into several operations in the protocol, vs. how easy is
it to combine several abstract operations from the model and aggregate them
into one operation in the protocol? (The question of granularity of
operations in the model vs. in the protocol).

2) How do you bootstrap into using security protocols such as RFC 2069 and
SSL? This might have some impact on both model and protocol.  Also, is
anybody planning to actually implement RFC 2069?