Proposed well known port for printing via HTTP

Proposed well known port for printing via HTTP

Proposed well known port for printing via HTTP

Don Wright don at
Tue Nov 19 14:31:14 EST 1996


That is correct.  HTTP is port independent; however, the server
would like very much to know which port/ports to listen to for
requests.  Therefore, it is quite possible to bring up different default
pages when requesting on one port versus another but the HTTP
protocol is really unchanged.


To: @ @ SMTP
cc:  (bcc: Don Wright)
From: @ (Carl-Uno Manros) @ SMTP
Date: 11/19/96 09:46:14 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed well known port for printing via HTTP

At 04:18 PM 11/18/96 PST, you wrote:

>Also, in this section, however, we should put some words like...
>  "It will be suggested (in section 5) that Clients identify Printer objects
>  using an HTTP type URL. One element of this proposal will be to further
>  recommend the establishment, through IANA, of a well known port (380
>  recommended) for printing via HTTP. The purpose of this well known port
>  would be to distinguish printing from non-printing content. While any
>  acceptable HTTP content could be inter-mixed over HTTP well known port 80,
>  only HTTP printing would be acceptable on port 380.
>  The remainder of this draft will define the IPP content for HTTP printing,
>  including IPP objects, operations, naming and attributes."
>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems


I brought up this subject with Larry Masinter (who is the IETF HTTP Chair)
when I met him last week. He claims that the HTTP does not really care about
the port number and that hence it would be no point in using a different
number fore the printing protocol. Can somebody else, who is supplying Web
servers, verify this?


Carl-Uno Manros
Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd.
M/S: ESAE-231
El Segundo, CA 90245, USA
E-mail: manros at


More information about the Ipp mailing list