Patrick Powell said:
> > - While the conference call was still open, we discussed the
> > use of a port besides 80. It was the consensus that we
> > would not mandate an alternative port number but we would
> > not preclude some implementations from using alternative
> > ports. The protocol document should make a statement that
> > by default IPP should be supported by servers and clients
> > over port 80.
> I think that this is a serious mistake. What is happening here is you
> are adding required functionality to a HTTP port service without
> coordinating this with the folks doing the HTTP stuff.
> In addition, you are requiring non-printer vendors to supply
> a HTTP server that will not only do regular HTTP functionality
> but also provide support for IPP as well if they want to do GATEWAY
> support for the IPP protocol to other print systems.
>> This is the part where I disagree strongly.
>The falacy in this arguement is that IPP isn't an independent protocol
it is a protocol layered inside HTTP 1.1. To have IPP default to anything
other than port 80 whould require that our printer URIs be in the form
of ipp://site/printer instead of http://site/printer which is not the
direction we chose, when we went for a layer under HTTP. If port 80
at a site is occupied by a non-ipp http server, then use allow for =
printers to use a different port.
TrueSpectra Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
"Excellence in Graphics"