IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Implementation question re.: chunking

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Implementation question re.: chunking

RE: IPP> Implementation question re.: chunking

Paul Moore (paulmo@microsoft.com)
Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:33:19 -0700

I dont see where it says that a server must support chunking. It says I must
support 1.1. Maybe I am reading it wrong (I guess thats why we have
bake-offs)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Turner, Randy [SMTP:rturner@sharplabs.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 10:48 AM
> To: 'ipp@pwg.org'
> Subject: RE: IPP> Implementation question re.: chunking
>
>
> Well, I'm assuming since we "last-call'd" these documents in the WG,
> that everybody is in agreement that an implementation that doesn't
> support chunking isn't compliant.
>
> Randy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Moore [mailto:paulmo@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 10:25 AM
> To: 'Randy Turner'; Carl Kugler
> Cc: ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: IPP> Implementation question re.:
> chunking
>
> You might find that some implementations dont support
> chunking.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Randy Turner [SMTP:rturner@sharplabs.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 10:05 AM
> > To: Carl Kugler
> > Cc: ipp@pwg.org
> > Subject: Re: IPP> Implementation question re.:
> chunking
> >
> > At 04:51 PM 7/24/98 +0000, you wrote:
> > >draft-ietf-ipp-protocol-06.txt says the client and
> server MUST support
> > the
> > "chunked" transfer encoding when receiving. My
> question is: Can we count
> > on this? I.e., if our client always transmits
> requests using the
> > "chunked"
> > transfer encoding, will we be able to interoperate
> with the vast majority
> > of IPP server implementations?
> > >
> > > -Carl
> >
> >
> > There are no vast majority of IPP server
> implementations (yet). I think
> > the
> > only worry is if someone plans to deploy IPP behind a
> generic web server
> > that doesn't support chunking. However, Apache and
> most other of the more
> > popular HTTP/1.1 servers will support this. It should
> definitely be a
> > bullet item (checkoff item) at the upcoming bake-off,
> however.
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > >