Subject: IPP>MOD - Job Identifier

From: Roger K Debry <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:24:50 -0400

There has been a lot of discussion on the proposal made by Paul Moore on the
use of Job URL.
Unfortunately, there is no way to know if we really have consensus on the
proposal.  I'd like to
see a re-statement of what we believe the agreed to changes are and some poll
of the discussion
list to see if we have a consensus.  Would Bob and/or Paul be willing to do
this?

Roger K deBry
Senior Techncial Staff Member
Architecture and Technology
IBM Printing Systems
email: [email-masked]
phone: 1-303-924-4080

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert Herriot)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:10:49 -0700

I sent the following on Friday. I hope that we all agree the two paragraphs
below.

>From rherriot Fri Jul 18 13:08:35 1997

So, I think that we are in agreement that the model and protocol documents
should state that the operations whose target is a Printer shall include
a parameter called printer-uri and operations whose target is a job shall
include a parameter called job-uri.

Randy suggests that the value of job-uri/printer-uri could differ from
the request-uri on the HTTP Request-Line, but the model has no such
concept.  So unless there are strong arguments to the contrary, the
protocol document will state that the request-uri has the same value
as the printer-uri/job-uri in the operation.

Bob Herriot

> From [email-masked] Mon Jul 21 10:34:32 1997
> From: Roger K Debry <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: IPP>MOD - Job Identifier
> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:24:50 -0400
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Sender: [email-masked]
> X-Lines: 16
>

---

From: "Caruso,Angelo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:36:03 PDT

Bob,

I agree.

Thanks,
Angelo Caruso

----------
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked];  [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPP>MOD - Job Identifier
Date: Monday, July 21, 1997 2:10PM

Bob Herriot

---

From: Scott Isaacson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 10:03:07 -0600

I am late to this discussion, but I too violently agree with the
understanding I have of Bob's summary:

1.  The model document needs to state that " the operations whose target is 
a Printer includes a parameter called printer-uri and operations whose 
target is a job shall include a parameter called job-uri"

2.  Bob suggests that the protocol document should state (since the model
implies) that the request-uri has the same value as the printer-uri/job-uri
in the operation. (I agree with this - if they are different, how does the
client get the two values - GetJobs and all the Creates return just one?)

3. The protocol document (except for appendix B) is a mapping of the
model document to HTTP.  

If all that is true, can't we state in the Protocol document (mapping of IPP
model to HTTP) that the way to encode the special parameters "job-uri" or
"printer-uri" is in the request-uri itself therefore we don't need the
redundancy in this mapping?  

Or are we expecting that payloads (user data) from one transport mapping
with interperate with payloads mapped onto some other future transport
mapping?
In that case, I can see a need to include it twice - once in the request-uri
and once in the "printer-uri" input parameter.

Scott

>>> Robert Herriot <[email-masked]> 07/21 3:10 PM >>>

Bob Herriot