Subject: IPP> MOD - RE: STATUS CODES

From: Keith Carter <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Apr 97 13:40:36

Carl-Uno,

There is alot of overlap with the status conditions and associated messages 
between HTTP 1.1 and the proposal for IPP.  An IPP client that uses HTTP 1.1 
could simply pass back the HTTP 1.1 messages asis in the response to an IPP 
application.

Keith
---------------------- Forwarded by Keith Carter on 04-24-97 01:36 PM 
---------------------------

DELEGATE @ AUSVMR
04-23-97 02:19 PM

To: Keith Carter
cc:  
Subject: IPP> MOD - RE: STATUS CODES                                      

To: KCARTER --AUSNOTES

From: DELEGATE
Subject: IPP> MOD - RE: STATUS CODES
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 H  The following note is being forwarded from KCARTER at AUSVMR.           H
 H  DO NOT USE the F6 REPLY function to reply to this note. You must        H
 H  contact the sender directly if you wish to reply, and not DELEGATE.     H
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

 ---------------------------- Note:    -------------------------------------
 Received: from lists.underscore.com by vnet.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with
    Wed, 23 Apr 97 12:28:56 EDT
 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7
 Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:27:16 -0400
 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA
 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970423092134.00fb5a78@garfield>
 X-Sender: cmanros@garfield
 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:21:34 PDT
 To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
 From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
 Subject: IPP> MOD - RE: Status codes
 In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 Sender: [email-masked]

 At 08:22 AM 4/22/97 PDT, [email-masked] wrote:
 >
 >
 >  Attached is a proposal for status code defintions.  I
 >  borrowed the design approach and applicable text from the
 >  HTTP 1.1 RFC (RFC 2068).  If this proposal is incorporated
 >  into the IPP Model document, maybe we should include an
 >  acknowledgement to the authors of HTTP 1.1 in the document.
 >

 Keith,

 just a question for clarification. You mentioned that you have taken
 much of this from the HTTP specification. Does that mean that we are
 in effect duplicating error messages that would already be given on
 the HTTP level, assuming that we have mapped IPP to HTTP?

 Carl-Uno

 Carl-Uno Manros
 Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
 701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
 Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
 Email: [email-masked]

>>>> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS NOTE <<<<