IPP> Minutes of IPP Working Group Meeting April 4-5, 2000

• Previous message: Carl Kugler: "Re: IPP>NOT latest notification spec"
• Reply: Carl-Uno Manros: "RE: IPP> Minutes of IPP Working Group Meeting April 4-5, 2000"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

>There were a few HTTP Issues that were raised at the IETF Plenary meeting about the ippget:
> delivery method:
...
> - Should each response-part be a separate message body in MIME multi-part?
> At the IETF Plenary meeting, it was determined that MIME multi-part should not be used for
> delivery notification.

What was the justification for this determination? The only argument I've ever heard is that multipart might get hosed up going through proxies. However, we already know from

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

(see thread at http://www.egroups.com/message/ipp/7102?&start=7086&threaded=1) that sending IPP through existing proxies is a very doubtful proposition anyway.

Or has the group accepted the idea of a multipart response but rejected the MIME encoding?

    -Carl

 ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ipp-minutes-000404.txt

• application/octet-stream attachment: ipp-minutes-000404.txt.url

• Next message: Carl Kugler: "IPP> Re: Minutes of IPP Working Group Meeting April 4-5, 2000"
• Previous message: Carl Kugler: "Re: IPP>NOT latest notification spec"
• Reply: Carl-Uno Manros: "RE: IPP> Minutes of IPP Working Group Meeting April 4-5, 2000"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 27 2000 - 11:04:51 EDT