I agree with Scott. I don't think we should mandate
what should happen in this situation. It's not the existing
At 06:41 AM 11/13/97 PST, you wrote:
>> The agreement Roger describes sounds good; one minor nit...
>>RKD> 9) If a client somehow derives a URI and tries to connect and the
>RKD> service (e.g. Printer-URI) has been turned-off, an appropriate
>RKD> http error code will be returned.
>> Why impose that requirement? That would mean that a printer without
> security (for whatever reason) would need to listen on the TLS port
> and implement enough of the handshake to negotiate no security so
> that it can send an HTTP error. Similarly, a secure-only server
> would need to listen on the unsecured port just to send an HTTP
> error. Just let TCP do the right thing - if they've constructed an
> invalid URI (one with the wrong scheme or port number in it), then
> it won't work, which is what should happen. It really isn't the
> business of the IPP spec to say what will happen on a TCP port on
> which IPP is not available.
>Scott Lawrence EmWeb Embedded Server <lawrence at agranat.com>
>Agranat Systems, Inc. Engineering http://www.agranat.com/>>
Corp. Research & Tech. Voice: 310-333-8329 / 8*823-8329
701 S. Aviation Blvd ESAE-231 Fax: 310-333-6618 / 8*823-6618
El Segundo, California 90245 Email: xriley at cp10.es.xerox.com