Subject: IPP> MOD - A couple of POSITIVE things about an "ipp" scheme

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 12:52:42 PDT

Since our phone discussion yesterday in which most of the people attending
took a negative attitude to the proposal for the "ipp" scheme, I have been
thinking a little about any positive things I could come up with in support
of a new scheme. Mind you, this is more to make sure that we have all the
facts on the table, rather than an expression of my personal view on what
the correct solution is.

1) It seems that even the dumbest of firewalls could distinguish IPP from
other HTP traffic, after reconfiguration. See my earlier message on firewalls.

2) The actual URIs for printers might become shorter. See Larry Masinter's
propoposal (although I still haven't figured it out).

3) If you want to print your IPP printer address next to the fax address on
your business card, it would be crystal clear that it is an IPP address,
not your personal web page adress. 

4) Software peddlers can more easily label their products as an "IPP
Server", rather than as an "HTTP Server with an IPP Printer". 

5) It might be a sounder overall architecture for the IETF, but I am still
unconvinced about which transports are "transports", and which are "not
transports" in the overall "IETF architecture" - if there is one?

Can anybody else come up with anything else in favor of scheme "ipp"?

If you want the positive arguments for using POST vs. PRINT, please check
back on Josh Cohen's I-D at:

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cohen-http-ext-postal-00.txt

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: Josh Cohen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 18:37:04 -0700

Minor correction.
this draft is the positive arguments for NOT using POST.

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros