IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> review of IPP documents

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> review of IPP documents

Re: IPP> review of IPP documents

Keith Moore (moore@cs.utk.edu)
Fri, 29 May 1998 18:49:05 -0400

> Aha the good old POST vs PRINT issue.
>
> REQUIRING a different port number would be wrong. We dont preclude this
> however (we have tested our implementations with non port 80 IPP agents).

I disagree. IPP is a different service than vanilla HTTP; there's
nothing wrong with having separate default ports for each,
any more than having different default ports for telnet and whois.

(Nobody's required to prevent the use of port 80; it's just that
IPP needs its own default port assigned to it, and the IPP URI
needs to default to that port)

I think this is cleaner overall than using a new HTTP method on port 80.

Keith