Subject: RE: IPP> Revised SLP 'printer:' template for comments

From: Robert Herriot <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 18:44:32 -0800

I agree that there is no guarantee that "printer-name" values are unique 
even within a domain, but they should be unique as a practical matter so 
that a user can uniquely identify a printer by its "printer-name" instead of 
the URL, at least in a local context.

There remains the issue of how does anyone determine if two separate SLP 
entries (with different URLs) represent the same output device. I am 
suggesting using a convention that a "printer-name" qualified by a domain 
name and SLP scope uniquely identifies a printer.

Bob Herriot

At 05:02 PM 1/4/99 , Manros, Carl-Uno B wrote:
>Bob,
> 
>I welcome this attempt to get a simpler SLP solution and in practice I think
>we will find few printers that have more than one URI.
>However, your assumption in a) that you could use 'printer-name' to find out
>whether a printer has several URIs does not
>seem correct. There is no guarantee that "printer-name' values are unique,
>even within the same domain (at least not according to IPP).
> 
>Carl-Uno
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Herriot [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 4:38 PM
>To: Ira McDonald; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: IPP> Revised SLP 'printer:' template for comments
>
>
>At our Tucson meeting, the IPP group agreed with James Kempf that there 
>should be a separate SLP entry for each URI and that the URI associated with
>
>the entry would be the printer's URI.  Ira, I know that you disagreed with 
>this direction.
>
>If we stay with this decision, it implies to me that there is 
>   a)  no need for the 'printer-uri-supported' attribute in the template. It
>can be 
>        determined by finding all URI's containing a 'printer-name' with a
>particular value.
>   b)  'uri-security-supported' contains the security supported for the
>associated URI and
>        not for other URIs associated with a printer.
>   c)  the complexity of two parallel attributes is eliminated.
>
>Bob Herriot
>

---

From: Randy Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 20:02:14 -0800

What difference does it make whether or not two SLP entries point to the same
output device? This seems like an administrator issue. If the administrator
wants two entries to point to the same output device, even across directory
contexts (or within directory-local context) then we can support him. On the
other hand, if the administrator wants to uniquely identify all output devices
that are advertised, then he can do that too.

I'm trying to identify why we care if two different entries point to the same
output device? All we have to do is give the administrator the "ability" to
create uniqueness if they wish. I don't think we need to specify what is
unique
and what isn't. With respect to a directory entry, the "printer-name" is human
understandable, as opposed to the URI string which may or may not be
understandable to a human, but is definitely understandable by client
software.

Randy

> >   c)  the complexity of two parallel attributes is eliminated.

Randy Turner
Sharp Laboratories of America
[email-masked]

---

From: Robert Herriot <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 11:52:18 -0800

Yes, I agree with all of you, but I think that my reply to Carl-Uno has been 
misinterpreted and a non-issue has become the central point of discussion 
while my original point has not been discussed at all.

I repeat my main point below, namely eliminating 'printer-uri-supported' and 
changing the meaning of 'uri-security-supported' in the SLP printer template
proposed by Ira.

Bob Herriot