IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for existin

IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for existin

Turner, Randy rturner at sharplabs.com
Mon Jun 1 14:02:03 EDT 1998


If this gets down to a point where we HAVE to modify our specification,
then I agree with Josh, it would be much better to differentiate based
on HTTP method than on URL scheme, (IMHO). (But I think its ok as it
stands now)
Randy


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Josh Cohen [SMTP:joshco at MICROSOFT.com]
<mailto:[SMTP:joshco at MICROSOFT.com]> 
	Sent:	Monday, June 01, 1998 10:54 AM
	To:	'http-wg at cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'
	Subject:	RE: IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new
	scheme and port for  existing HTTP servers


I think its fine to have a new default dest port associated with IPP,
but a new URL scheme seems like more trouble than may be apparent.
For one, even though IPP is a different service than HTTP, an IPP client
*is* speaking HTTP, IMHO.  HTTP is used as a layer underneath IPP.  So,
I think the URL scheme should continue to be http://. <http://.> .
Using a new URL scheme will certainly break compatibility with existing
proxies.  Proxy server's encountering a new scheme will fail unless they
are modified to understand it.
As I've stated before, I think the best way to differentiate the service
and remain compatible with existing proxy servers is to use a new method
on the request line.


		> 



More information about the Ipp mailing list