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

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

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

Turner, Randy (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Mon, 1 Jun 1998 11:02:03 -0700

If this gets down to a point where we HAVE to modify our specification,
then I agree with Josh, it would be much better to differentiate based
on HTTP method than on URL scheme, (IMHO). (But I think its ok as it
stands now)
Randy

-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Cohen [SMTP:joshco@MICROSOFT.com]
<mailto:[SMTP:joshco@MICROSOFT.com]>
Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 10:54 AM
To: 'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'
Subject: RE: IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new
scheme and port for existing HTTP servers

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://. <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.

>