IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for

RE: IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for

Josh Cohen (joshco@microsoft.com)
Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:51:56 -0700

I think its fine to have a new default dest port
associated with IPP, but a new URL scheme seems like more
trouble than may be apparent.

For one, even though IPP is a different service than HTTP,
an IPP client *is* speaking HTTP, IMHO. HTTP is used as
a layer underneath IPP. So, I think the URL scheme
should continue to be http://..

Using a new URL scheme will certainly break compatibility
with existing proxies. Proxy server's encountering a new
scheme will fail unless they are modified to understand it.

As I've stated before, I think the best way to differentiate
the service and remain compatible with existing proxy servers
is to use a new method on the request line.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov
> [mailto:hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 10:31 AM
> To: Carl-Uno Manros; http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Cc: ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for
> existing HTTP servers
>
>
> Carl-Uno,
> By "scheme" in the text below, do you mean a
> new HTTP method, parallel to GET and POST, or something
> else?
> regards,
> Ted Hardie
> NASA NIC
>
> > 1) the introduction of a new scheme called "ipp"
> > 2) the introduction a new default port number for IPP servers.
> >
> > Before the IPP WG responds to those suggestions, the IPP WG
> would like to
> > get some advice from the HTTP WG on the implications of
> such a change.
> > In particular, we want some feedback on how easy or
> difficult it would be
> > to configure existing web servers to accomodate the
> suggested changes.
>