IPP> Some observations from the IPP BOF in the IETF

IPP> Some observations from the IPP BOF in the IETF

IPP> Some observations from the IPP BOF in the IETF

Randy Turner rturner at sharplabs.com
Tue Dec 17 12:31:01 EST 1996


rdebry at us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> Classification:
> Prologue:
> Epilogue:
> 
> I have been thinking about this issue and the proposal to split out the
> MIME-type encoding as a separate RFC.  I don't know if firewalls look at the
> MIME type of data being passed through or not (the Content-Type header of the
> entity body).  However, if we encode the entire IPP message in a new MIME type,
> say  something like IPP/Mixed, then it at least offers firewall administrators
> to shut of printing through the firewall based on MIME type.   I also like this
> approach because it allows us to completely define the semantics and syntax of
> the content, without worrying about baggage from currently defined MIME-types.
> One example of baggage that I object to is the requirement  to use boundary
> strings in Multipart-mixed messages. Lengths are much better!
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 12/17/96 07:46
> AM ---------------------------
> 




In my experiences with firewalls (TIS, Checkpoint, etc.), no firewall
filters
exist that filter on MIME type. This is an application layer object and
is
at least one level above (maybe more) where firewall filters are
looking.


Randy









-- 
Randy Turner
Network Architect
Sharp Laboratories of America
rturner at sharplabs.com




More information about the Ipp mailing list