Subject: Re: IPP> Proposal for new IPP scheme

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 20:04:51 -0400

The more I think about this, the more I think it is out of scope for the
work we are doing.  We are working on the wire protocol and encoding for
IPP, so ...

- Getting a port number allocated for IPP is OK
- Specifying that port as the default port is OK
- Creating a new scheme that never hits the wire and is handled inside
clients and servers is NOT a wire protocol issue.

While I think this material could be a interesting proposal and possibly an
informational RFC or maybe even more, I don't think it belongs in the
standard track RFCs that define IPP.  While I am against a new method, at
least it is a wire level issue.

... my 2 cents worth ...

**********************************************
* Don Wright                 [email-masked] *
* Product Manager, Strategic Alliances       *
* Lexmark International                      *
* 740 New Circle Rd                          *
* Lexington, Ky 40550                        *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax)    *
**********************************************

---

From: Robert Herriot <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:37:38 -0700

Actually the default port never hits the wire either.  Both the default port 
and the ipp scheme-name are smoke and mirrors on the client which give the 
illusion of an ipp scheme.

On the wire there is nothing but http with default port 80.

If the IPP RFC's should specify wire protocol only, then they should not 
discuss ipp schemes or default ports. If we believe the IPP RFC's should 
give some hints for implementing clients, then the proposal from Randy about 
the ipp scheme and default ports is reasonable except for the last line.

Bob Herriot

---

From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:30:07 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

There have been several messages recently indicating that the ipp scheme
proposal would not appear "on the wire".

My understanding, both from the teleconference last week and the proposal
recently submitted by Randy Turner, is that this is incorrect.  The
proposal is to send "ipp://...." on the wire!  This is how a server is
able to determine that the port number is the ipp default and not port 80.

Now, how many out there still support this proposal?

	Ron Bergman
	Dataproducts Corp.

---

From: James Walker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 07:26:19 -0500

> least it is a wire level issue.

I guess I am a bit confused as to why a new ipp: scheme is *not* a
wire protocol issue.  The last time that I checked, we are still
returning URLs for printer and jobs in application/ipp responses.
And, I am presuming that if we were to adopt an ipp: scheme (whether
it is an alias for something or not) we would be returning those URLs
with the ipp: scheme.

So, why is this not a protocol issue?

confused...
...walker

--
Jim Walker <[email-masked]>
System Architect/DAZEL Wizard
DAZEL Corporation, Austin, TX