IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme

Re: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme

Carl Kugler (kugler@us.ibm.com)
Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:36:55 -0400

But HTTP/1.1 client MUST use the absolute path form for the Request-URI=
when
talking to an origin server. The abs_path part of IPP: and HTTP: URLs=
are
identical.

Quote:
"The most common form of Request-URI is that used to identify a resourc=
e on an
origin server or gateway. In this case the absolute path of the URI MUS=
T be
transmitted (see section 3.2.1, abs_path) as the Request-URI..."
Or are you discussing HTTP headers other than Request-URI?

-Carl

rturner@sharplabs.com on 07/13/98 10:12:36 AM
Please respond to rturner@sharplabs.com
To: ipp@pwg.org, Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM@ibmus
cc:
Subject: Re: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme

Keith was suggesting that, in the absence of a proxy server, that "ipp:=
"
URLs would be used in both HTTP headers and in the application/ipp body=

part. I believe this would definitely impact generic HTTP 1.1 web serve=
rs.

Randy

At 03:53 PM 7/13/98 +0000, Carl Kugler wrote:
>> Some comments on Keith's responses below.
>>
>> Randy
>>
>>
>...
>> >
>> >> 6. Compound schemes is a new idea and not well understood in its'=

>> >> ramifications. In the current IANA registry for URL schemes, t=
here
>> >> are no examples that indicate that scheme "translation" to ano=
ther
>> >> scheme is required.
>> >
>> >IPP is the first group to try to layer something on top of HTTP.
>> >So naturally there are no examples for how to do this. That's
>> >what comes with breaking new ground.
>> >
>> >Note that the translation is only required to talk to HTTP proxies.=

>> >The general case is that the IPP client talks directly to the IPP
>> >server, and there's no URI translation going on at all.
>>
>> Your previous comments that say something like "IPP clients will onl=
y use
>> HTTP URLs when speaking to HTTP proxies" eliminates us from fieldin=
g IPP
>> as CGI or NSAPI/ISAPI extensions to generic HTTP 1.1 web servers. Th=
ese
>> generic
>> web servers will not understand IPP URLs either, and this case of ge=
neric
>> web server extension
>> could make up a significant set of initial releases of IPP.
>>
>
>I don't agree that using IPP URLs prevents fielding IPP as CGI or
NSAPI/ISAPI extensions to generic HTTP 1.1 web servers. Isn't it true =
that
the web server doesn't need to understand IPP URLs, since they never ap=
pear
on the wire (outside of the application/ipp body)? The one exceptional=

case is that in which the client is talking to a proxy server and must
transmit the absolute URL in the Request-URI.
>
>
>-----
>Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/ipp/?start=3D4078
>Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/
>

=