> 2) I hope that we are not in conflict with the HTTP 1.1 spec if we
> allow an
> HTTP server, providing IPP service, NOT to support the HTTP default
> port 80.
[Turner, Randy] These rules do not preclude this. I think it
was Ira that stated
(correctly) that all HTTP 1.1 servers must support 80, but may
support other
port numbers, like your quote from 2068 says. This scenario is
covered by
following my proposed rules, in order.
> A couple of quotes from RFC 2068:
> "The default port is 80, but other ports can be used."
> "If the port (in the URI) is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed."
>
> This seems to indicate that an HTTP 1.1 server MAY be allowed to ONLY
> listen to another port number, which I believe was the new part of
> Randy's
> proposal.
>
> Carl-Uno
>
> At 11:06 AM 10/9/97 PDT, Turner, Randy wrote:
> >
> >I think we could include these rules into the model document, and
> echoed
> >to the protocol document, if need be, for emphasis. The following
> steps
> >would be taken, in order, to determine what port number should be
> used
> >to contact an IPP server
> >
> >1. If the protocol scheme for the URI allows the port number to
> >be explicity included in the URI string, and an explicit port number
> >is specified, then that port number MUST
> >be used by the client to contact the IPP server.
> >
> >2. If the protocol scheme for the URI does not allow an
> >explicit port number specification, then the default port
> >number for the protocol should be used.
> >
> >3. Consult the appropriate IPP protocol mapping document to
> > determine alternamte port numbers for the protocol specified
> > in the server URI.
> >
> >Comments?
> >
> >Randy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Carl-Uno Manros
> Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
> 701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
> Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
> Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com