IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> PRO - New I-D - Known HTTP Proxy/

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> PRO - New I-D - Known HTTP Proxy/

RE: IPP> PRO - New I-D - Known HTTP Proxy/Caching Problems

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Mon Apr 03 2000 - 18:58:20 EDT

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "RE: IPP> Document-format attribute.. [ipp-mod] clarification"

    Hi Carl-Uno,

    Point taken - certainly on port 631 you don't get recognized
    as HTTP at all by most infrastructure servers.

    For IPP/1.0 (or later) products that are configurable to use
    port 80 (and many are because they don't pass through firewalls
    at all otherwise), the problems are relevant.

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 3:46 PM
    To: McDonald, Ira; 'ipp@pwg.org'
    Subject: RE: IPP> PRO - New I-D - Known HTTP Proxy/Caching Problems

    Ira,

    It was suggested in the IETF-IPP meeting that we can probably avoid
    most of these problems by always using port 631.

    Carl-Uno

    -----Original Message-----
    From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
    Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 3:30 PM
    To: 'ipp@pwg.org'
    Subject: IPP> PRO - New I-D - Known HTTP Proxy/Caching Problems

    Hi folks,

    Interesting recent I-D from IETF Web Replication and
    Caching (WREC) WG:

    "Known HTTP Proxy/Caching Problems"
    <draft-ietf-wrec-known-prob-01.txt> (10 March 2000)

    One of the documented problems is called:

    "Lack of HTTP/1.1 compliance for proxy caches"

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox and Sharp
      High North Inc



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 03 2000 - 19:05:09 EDT