IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: On the harm of adding new methods

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: On the harm of adding new methods

Re: IPP> Re: On the harm of adding new methods

Ira Mcdonald x10962 (imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com)
Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:36:41 PDT

Hi folks,

Yes, the content-type of IPP requests AND responses is ALWAYS
'application/ipp'. That was decided a long time ago.
This isn't a legitimate concern

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald (High North)
-------------------------------------------------------
[the thread]
Return-Path: <ipp-owner@pwg.org>
Received: from zombi (zombi.eso.mc.xerox.com) by snorkel.eso.mc.xerox.com (4.1/XeroxClient-1.1)
id AA08083; Wed, 10 Jun 98 12:32:54 EDT
Received: from alpha.xerox.com by zombi (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA22993; Wed, 10 Jun 98 12:25:21 EDT
Received: from lists.underscore.com ([199.125.85.30]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <52413(1)>; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:25:54 PDT
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA23982 for <imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:22:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:19:46 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA23590 for ipp-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:15:23 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:15:11 PDT
From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: Josh Cohen <joshco@microsoft.com>, ipp@pwg.org, ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Subject: IPP> Re: On the harm of adding new methods
In-Reply-To: <000f01bd9486$f504c160$aa66010d@copper.parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980610121227.17631A-100000@alice.agranat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org
Status: R

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Larry Masinter wrote:

> Any new METHOD in HTTP is a serious modification to the protocol, because
> the forwarding function must be aware of it. A new content-type, however,
> can be as easily recognized in the filter layer as a new method, but
> requires NO changes to the forwarding function. Many filters already filter
> on content-type anyway.

But will the content-type be ok in both directions? What is the
content-type of an ipp response? If it is not also application/ipp,
then you could easily create a situation in which the request can be
sent and pass through the filter, but the response cannot...