IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> regarding "ipp:" (I spoke too soon...)

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> regarding "ipp:" (I spoke too soon...)

Re: IPP> regarding "ipp:" (I spoke too soon...)

Randy Turner (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Thu, 02 Jul 1998 17:00:13 -0700

There were no operational problems with the proposal, I think what the
group boiled down to was that creating a new "ipp" scheme just for end-user
convenience was not enough justification. I don't remember any specific
examples of how the proposal would break if deployed.


At 08:31 AM 7/2/98 -0700, Carl-Uno Manros wrote:
>Please see this attachment which describes the proposal worked out by Randy
>Turner and Larry Masinter. Case 3 in that proposal caused a number of people
>to object, pointing out that the previous assumption that ipp: would not be
>used over the wire was not true any more. There was also discussion about
>which format the IPP Printer generated Job URIs should have. They are hardly
>ever seen by and end user and could as well be in http: format. The result
>would have been that the client would have had to cover for URIs coming
>back in either scheme and always have to be able to convert between them.
>The more we discussed this, the more causes we found that the ipp: scheme
>was not such a bright idea after all. As for the suggestion to include a
>security paramter in the ipp: scheme, this was adviced against also by Randy
>and Larry, as it would make the ipp: non-mappable in the http: to ipp:
>direction. We believe that the current solution to identify what security is
>supported by a printer works well without the need for a parameter in the
>This is my short answer and explanation right now. I assume that other
>members of the WG can give you further arguments, but many have already
>started their July 4th celebrations.
>At 12:46 AM 7/2/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>On a careful re-reading the list of resolutions for the IPP
>>documents, I was surprised to see that the WG had decided not
>>to adopt an "ipp:" URL prefix. (I was out of town last
>>week and unable to follow the list as closely as I would
>>have liked.)
>>In my earlier poll of IESG there was strong agreement that both
>>a separate port and a new URL prefix were needed, though the
>>questions were not asked separately We're having a phone
>>conference on July 2 (today or tomorrow depending on your
>>current time zone), so I'll ask them again just to be sure.
>>Other than the issue with interoperability with http proxies
>>(which are easily addressed), I'd like to know what the
>>technical problems were with using an "ipp:" prefix. I've
>>reviewed most of the list discussion since the teleconference
>>that I participated in, and didn't see any good explanation
>>of why this would cause problems.