IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme

Robert Herriot <robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM> Tue, 14 July 1998 19:55 UTC

Delivery-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:56:06 -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 PAA14167 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:55:44 -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 PAA11072 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:55:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA01966 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:55:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:51:11 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA00936 for ipp-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:46:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199807141940.MAA21099@woden.eng.sun.com>
X-Sender: rherriot@woden.eng.sun.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:46:29 -0700
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, don@lexmark.com
From: Robert Herriot <robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme
Cc: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>, Ipp@pwg.org, Keith Moore <Moore@cs.utk.edu>, moore@cs.utk.edu
In-Reply-To: <199807131315.JAA02267@spot.cs.utk.edu>
References: <Your message of "Mon, 13 Jul 1998 08:47:37 EDT." <199807131249.AA05859@interlock2.lexmark.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_666159366==_.ALT"
Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org

If there is going to be a separate "E.164" URL type for voice and fax, how 
does mechanism work for phone numbers that are both voice and fax -- many 
homes have a system that takes voice messages and faxes.  

Bob Herriot


At 06:14 AM 7/13/98 , Keith Moore wrote:
>> 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