IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> New IPP Model Document

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> New IPP Model Document

RE: IPP> New IPP Model Document

Turner, Randy (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Fri, 29 May 1998 21:43:08 -0700


I think in the case of IPP behind a generic web server, the two headers
are entirely different, and precedence does not apply. I'm pretty sure
it applies in all cases, even a dedicated IPP/HTTP server, but give me
the weekend to mull it over ;)

Randy

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Martin
To: Turner, Randy
Cc: ipp@pwg.org
Sent: 5/29/98 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: IPP> New IPP Model Document

Randy,

> It is becoming clear to me that the two URI(URLs) actually mean
> different things, and that each URI should be handled by different
> pieces of the system; the HTTP header should be handled by the outer
> HTTP processing code, while the inner URI should be handled by the
core
> IPP code. Its almost like the HTTP URI is really the transport URI,
and
> the IPP URI really points to the IPP object to which we are
> communicating (the application layer object).

Ok, then I guess we're back to Puru's basic inquiry
revolving around precedence between the two URLs.

Based on your above statement, it sounds like we must
have NO precedence whatsoever, right?

...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------