IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Minutes of IPP Working Group Meet

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Minutes of IPP Working Group Meet

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

From: Carl-Uno Manros (carl@manros.com)
Date: Thu Apr 27 2000 - 11:14:39 EDT

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "IPP> Revised LDAP Printer Schema - 27 April 2000"

    Carl,

    The suggestion from the IETF 47 meeting was that multi-part MIME would not
    buy us anything.
    We can already send multiple responses in a single application/ipp MIME part
    with our current encoding.

    Carl-Uno
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Carl Kugler
      Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 7:58 AM
      To: ipp@pwg.org
      Subject: IPP> Minutes of IPP Working Group Meeting April 4-5, 2000

    >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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 27 2000 - 11:21:24 EDT