Subject: RE: IPP> review of IPP documents

From: Paul Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 16:20:18 -0700

We can recommend a different port. The point is that people can still use
port 80.

Making it a new method FORCES the protocol to be different and hence
detectable by firewalls (the merit of this I am not discussing).

The point was that we used HTTP so that it would go through proxies
(definitely a good thing) as much as going through firewalls (debatable).
Many proxies only carry port 80.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Keith Moore [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Friday, May 29, 1998 3:49 PM
> To:	Paul Moore
> Cc:	'Keith Moore'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject:	Re: IPP> review of IPP documents 
> 
> > Aha the good old POST vs PRINT issue.
> > 
> > REQUIRING a different port number would be wrong. We dont preclude this
> > however (we have tested our implementations with non port 80 IPP
> agents).
> 
> I disagree.  IPP is a different service than vanilla HTTP; there's
> nothing wrong with having separate default ports for each,
> any more than having different default ports for telnet and whois.
> 
> (Nobody's required to prevent the use of port 80; it's just that
> IPP needs its own default port assigned to it, and the IPP URI 
> needs to default to that port)
> 
> I think this is cleaner overall than using a new HTTP method on port 80.
> 
> Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 19:32:23 -0400

Please explain why it's useful to be able to send IPP through
proxies that don't act as firewalls.  If you don't have a firewall
in the way, why not just talk directly to the IPP server?

Keith