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

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

Re: IPP> review of IPP documents

James Walker (walker@dazel.com)
Tue, 02 Jun 1998 08:33:13 -0500

Paul Moore wrote:
> Excellent point. So why the heck are we using HTTP for IPP?

Although one could take this as a facetious response, it always seems
to me be an important question worth asking again. If IPP and others
are approved as standard application protocols built on top of HTTP,
then this is a green flag that HTTP is an acceptable transport for
application protocols. And we will see more.

So, is the IETF supporting (even encouraging ?) application protocols
to be built using HTTP as a transport? Or are these protocols that
are currently being developed (IPP, WebDAV, etc) just considered test
cases to see if the idea will fly?

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ned Freed [SMTP:Ned.Freed@innosoft.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 29, 1998 6:49 PM
> > To: Keith Moore
> > Cc: Paul Moore; 'Keith Moore'; ipp@pwg.org; moore@cs.utk.edu
> > Subject: Re: IPP> review of IPP documents
> >
> > > You miss the point. The fact that people already have port 80 proxies
> > > installed doesn't matter. There's no way that we're going to
> > standardize
> > > IPP on port 80 - HTTP already has that port, and IPP is a different
> > > service than HTTP.
> >
> > > Once upon a time, a lot of people had email only access to the Internet.
> > > That wasn't an good reason for forcing every service to run over email.
> >
> > My favorite example is email over FTP. We'd still be doing email that way
> > if we hadn't deployed a new email service on a separate port.
> >
> > Ned


Jim Walker <walker@dazel.com>
System Architect/DAZEL Wizard
DAZEL Corporation, Austin, TX