IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Mon, 13 July 1998 13:26 UTC

Delivery-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:26:14 -0400
Return-Path: ipp-owner@pwg.org
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (ns [132.151.1.1]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id JAA26835 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:26:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lists.underscore.com (uscore-1.mv.com [199.125.85.30]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id JAA02945 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:26:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA23012 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:26:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:19:41 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA22431 for ipp-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:15:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199807131315.JAA02267@spot.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: don@lexmark.com
cc: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>, Ipp@pwg.org, Keith Moore <Moore@cs.utk.edu>, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 13 Jul 1998 08:47:37 EDT." <199807131249.AA05859@interlock2.lexmark.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:14:59 -0400
Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org

> 2.  In cases where people handle URL's, I think the "http:" URL is better
> from a number of perspectives which I have already described.  Some how
> people seem to figure out business cards that say:
> 
> Phone: 606-232-4808
> Fax: 606-232-6740
> 

It's interesting that you should cite that case.  The discussion recently
came up on the URI list as to whether there should be a single "E.164"
URL type for all phone numbers, or whether there should be separate URL
types for voice, fax, etc.

The conclusion was that they had to be separate, because the user 
interfaces for the handling of fax and phone needed to be different, 
and also because in some cases (e.g. ISDN) the call setup actually 
needed to know which was being used before the call was placed.

The http/ipp argument seems very similar to me, with a similar conclusion.

Keith

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email