Subject: IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for existin g HTTP servers

From: "Turner, Randy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 11:02:03 -0700

If this gets down to a point where we HAVE to modify our specification,
then I agree with Josh, it would be much better to differentiate based
on HTTP method than on URL scheme, (IMHO). (But I think its ok as it
stands now)
Randy

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Josh Cohen [SMTP:[email-masked]]
<mailto:[SMTP:[email-masked]]> 
	Sent:	Monday, June 01, 1998 10:54 AM
	To:	[email-masked]'
	Subject:	RE: IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new
	scheme and port for  existing HTTP servers

I think its fine to have a new default dest port associated with IPP,
but a new URL scheme seems like more trouble than may be apparent.
For one, even though IPP is a different service than HTTP, an IPP client
*is* speaking HTTP, IMHO.  HTTP is used as a layer underneath IPP.  So,
I think the URL scheme should continue to be http://. <http://.> .
Using a new URL scheme will certainly break compatibility with existing
proxies.  Proxy server's encountering a new scheme will fail unless they
are modified to understand it.
As I've stated before, I think the best way to differentiate the service
and remain compatible with existing proxy servers is to use a new method
on the request line.