IPP> Minutes of IPP Working Group Meeting April 4-5, 2000

IPP> Minutes of IPP Working Group Meeting April 4-5, 2000

IPP> Minutes of IPP Working Group Meeting April 4-5, 2000

Carl-Uno Manros carl at manros.com
Thu Apr 27 11:14:39 EDT 2000


Carl,

The suggestion from the IETF 47 meeting was that multi-part MIME would not
buy us anything.
We can already send multiple responses in a single application/ipp MIME part
with our current encoding.

Carl-Uno
  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of Carl Kugler
  Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 7:58 AM
  To: ipp at pwg.org
  Subject: IPP> Minutes of IPP Working Group Meeting April 4-5, 2000


  >There were a few HTTP Issues that were raised at the IETF Plenary meeting
about the ippget:
  > delivery method:
  ...
  > - Should each response-part be a separate message body in MIME
multi-part?
  >  At the IETF Plenary meeting, it was determined that MIME multi-part
should not be used for
  >  delivery notification.

  What was the justification for this determination?  The only argument I've
ever heard is that multipart might get hosed up going through proxies.
However, we already know from

  "Known HTTP Proxy/Caching Problems"
  <draft-ietf-wrec-known-prob-01.txt> (10 March 2000)

  (see thread at
http://www.egroups.com/message/ipp/7102?&start=7086&threaded=1) that sending
IPP through existing proxies is a very doubtful proposition anyway.

  Or has the group accepted the idea of a multipart response but rejected
the MIME encoding?

      -Carl

   ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ipp-minutes-000404.txt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/ipp/attachments/20000427/6f389c48/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Ipp mailing list