IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Why must IPP be transport-independent?

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Why must IPP be transport-independent?

Re: IPP> Why must IPP be transport-independent?

Carl-Uno Manros (manros@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:19:44 PDT

At 12:48 PM 6/4/98 PDT, Harry Lewis wrote:
>Subject: IPP> Why must IPP be transport-independent?
>After reading Paul Moore's posting (below), it appears
>that we are digger ourselves a deeper and deeper hole
>to fall into.
>Must IPP be transport-independent?
>I say "No". IPP stands for "Internet Printing Protocol",
>not something like "Generic Printing Protocol", or "Universal
>Printing Protocol". It was designed for use on the Internet.


I think I start agreeing with you on this one. My recollection is that we
got this as part of our discussion to use a MIME part for the encoding.
MIME purists have stated that all MIME types MUST be transport independent.

I think that having an object that can be mapped to another transport has
its virtues, but I was never convinced that it would ever make sense to
actually send the "application/ipp" object over email. Alternative
transports that make sense to me are things like the emerging HTTP-NG
protocol, and that is most likely able to handle URLs the same way as HTTP
does today.

If somebody REALLY wants to send "application/ipp" over email, then they
would need to have an email address in the place where we are using the
HTTP URIs anyway, and I expect that such a mailbox would be dedicated to
the IPP printer and know what to do with messages it receives. In short,
new transport, new addressing scheme.

In summary, I think we should remove any redundant URI information in the
"application/ipp", it seems to cause more confusion than what it is worth.

Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com