Subject: SLP service registrations

From: Timothy S Zurcher <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:31:58 -0700

I want to support an abstract service type template.  It's actually
the "service:printer" service type.  The "service:printer" abstract
service type defines concrete service types, including
"service:printer:lpr" and "service:printer:ipp".  

When I register my services, is it reasonable to have separate 
registrations for each of the following?

    1) "service:printer"
    2) "service:printer:lpr"
    3) "service:printer:ipp"

The thought would be to specify the common attributes with the first 
(#1 above) registration, and then unique attributes when I register
the second (#2 above) and third (#3 above).  Is this a good way to go?

Also, it looks like when registering, that template-type, template-version,
template-description, and template-url-syntax are attributes that should
be specified (as attributes to SLPReg()).  Am I getting this correct?
If so, It seems that I would only specify these when registering #1 above,
and that they'd be inherited by the concrete types (#2 and #3).

If I'm on the right track so far, I'm a little confused by the separate
service template for the "service:printer:raw-tcp" service type.
It has it's own template-type, template-version, template-description,
and template-url-syntax attributes.  Would I specify them when registering
the following?

    4) "service:printer:raw-tcp"

Does that go against what I've read about not specifying attributes when
registering a concrete service type that have already been registered
with the corresponding abstract service type?  That is, can I specify
the template-* attributes when registering "service:printer", and then
again (unique values) when registering "service:printer:raw-tcp"?

Is the "service:printer" service type really the abstract service
type for the "service:printer:raw-tcp" service type?  If so, then it
should inherit all of the attributes that I registered with #1 above.
Is this correct?

If I want to operate as an SLPv2 SA, in an environment containing 
SLPv1 UAs and SAs, SLPv2 UAs and SAs, and also SLPv2 Bridging DAs.
I've read specifically that abstract service types should be avoided
in this type of environment (because SLPv1 does not support abstract 
service types).  How are the above service types handled?
Will the SLPv1 UAs be able to learn about them (i.e. the concrete
types registered by #2, #3, and #4 above)?

Thanks,
Tim Zurcher

---

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:19:14 -0700 (PDT)

Check the service type template registry, 
http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/svrloc-templates/

		jak
		
>To: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
>cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: SLP service registrations 
>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:35:39 -0700
>From: Timothy S Zurcher <[email-masked]>
>
>
>James,
>
>Some comments below.
>
>Thanks,
>Tim Zurcher
>
>In your message you said:
>>Tim,
>>
>>An SLPv1 UA can make a query for "service:printer" but it will not
>>be able to interpret the URLs that are returned because SLPv1 does
>>not support the abstract service type syntax. If you want to
>>support SLPv1, you would have to register service:lpr, service:ipp,
>>etc.
>
>Do you know if there are standard service type templates for the
>simple service types of service:lpr and service:ipp?  I'm assuming 
>that these are not covered by the service:printer abstract service 
>type template.

---

From: "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:23:29 -0700

Hi Tim,

Templates for SLPv1 IPP and LPR printers could easily be
derived from the SLPv2 Printer v2.0 template.  There are
a few differences in SLPv1 versus SLPv2 template syntax.

Would you like help with translating the SLPv2 Printer
template?  This question's going to wind up coming to
me from other Xerox implementors anyway.

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
  High North Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy S Zurcher [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 12:36 PM
To: James Kempf
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: SLP service registrations 

James,

Some comments below.

Thanks,
Tim Zurcher