Actually the default port never hits the wire either. Both the default port
and the ipp scheme-name are smoke and mirrors on the client which give the
illusion of an ipp scheme.
On the wire there is nothing but http with default port 80.
If the IPP RFC's should specify wire protocol only, then they should not
discuss ipp schemes or default ports. If we believe the IPP RFC's should
give some hints for implementing clients, then the proposal from Randy about
the ipp scheme and default ports is reasonable except for the last line.
Bob Herriot
At 05:04 PM 6/16/98 , don@lexmark.com wrote:
>The more I think about this, the more I think it is out of scope for the
>work we are doing. We are working on the wire protocol and encoding for
>IPP, so ...
>
>- Getting a port number allocated for IPP is OK
>- Specifying that port as the default port is OK
>- Creating a new scheme that never hits the wire and is handled inside
>clients and servers is NOT a wire protocol issue.
>
>While I think this material could be a interesting proposal and possibly an
>informational RFC or maybe even more, I don't think it belongs in the
>standard track RFCs that define IPP. While I am against a new method, at
>least it is a wire level issue.
>
>... my 2 cents worth ...
>
>**********************************************
>* Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
>* Product Manager, Strategic Alliances *
>* Lexmark International *
>* 740 New Circle Rd *
>* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
>* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
>**********************************************
>
--=====================_21611866==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Actually the default port never hits the wire either.
Both the default port
and the ipp scheme-name are smoke and mirrors on the client which give
the
illusion of an ipp scheme.
On the wire there is nothing but http with default port 80.
If the IPP RFC's should specify wire protocol only, then they should not
discuss ipp schemes or default ports. If we believe the IPP RFC's should
give some hints for implementing clients, then the proposal from Randy
about
the ipp scheme and default ports is reasonable except for the last
line.
Bob Herriot
At 05:04 PM 6/16/98 , don@lexmark.com wrote:
>The more I think about this, the more I think it is out of scope for
the
>work we are doing. We are working on the wire protocol and
encoding for
>IPP, so ...
>
>- Getting a port number allocated for IPP is OK
>- Specifying that port as the default port is OK
>- Creating a new scheme that never hits the wire and is handled
inside
>clients and servers is NOT a wire protocol issue.
>
>While I think this material could be a interesting proposal and
possibly an
>informational RFC or maybe even more, I don't think it belongs in
the
>standard track RFCs that define IPP. While I am against a new
method, at
>least it is a wire level issue.
>
>... my 2 cents worth ...
>
>**********************************************
>* Don
Wright
don@lexmark.com *
>* Product Manager, Strategic
Alliances *
>* Lexmark
International
*
>* 740 New Circle
Rd
*
>* Lexington, Ky
40550
*
>* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
>**********************************************
>
--=====================_21611866==_.ALT--