All,
I have been asked by some of the people on the DL to try to summarize where
we are and what is still under debate. Here my attempt:
On the use of an "ipp:" scheme
------------------------------
Keith liked the "ipp:" scenario which we developed in Monterey (and shot
down due to a number of concerns).
After debate with Randy and others, Keith came up with a compromise proposal
which modifies the "ipp:" scenario to state that "ipp:" will NEVER be used
on the HTTP layer. This includes proxies and any other variations of
communication on the HTTP layer. The compromise proposal still requires that
"ipp:" be used in the IPP objects references within the application/ipp MIME
object, as well as on all user interfaces, including directories, service
location etc.
I have still not seen any consensus within the IPP WG whether the members
are prepared to accept the suggested compromise. I would also like to have
verified whether the IPP members have accepted Keith's responses to the
issues list in the Monterey document. Reading through the email messages, I
think that there are still some answers outstanding or further
clarifications needed.
On security service negotiation
-------------------------------
This issue is still a big question mark. Keith has suggested to bring in
expertise on security and on URL parameters to help resolve this problem,
which does not seem to be unique to IPP.
We are not any closer to a resolution to this issue then we were earlier.
---
Let us see what the discussion of these subjects brings in tomorrow's phone
conference.
Carl-Uno