IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Proposal for new IPP scheme

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Proposal for new IPP scheme

Re: IPP> Proposal for new IPP scheme

James Walker (walker@dazel.com)
Wed, 17 Jun 1998 07:26:19 -0500

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.

I guess I am a bit confused as to why a new ipp: scheme is *not* a
wire protocol issue. The last time that I checked, we are still
returning URLs for printer and jobs in application/ipp responses.
And, I am presuming that if we were to adopt an ipp: scheme (whether
it is an alias for something or not) we would be returning those URLs
with the ipp: scheme.

So, why is this not a protocol issue?


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