Subject: IPP> IPP scheme proposal

From: Randy Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:14:06 -0700

The scenario in which the "ipp" scheme appears on the wire is not expected to
actually be used. I believe the logic behind having the IPP server
understand a
"full" IPP URL is based upon the rationale in RFC 2068 for having HTTP servers
be able to accept "full" URLs. Its just in the IPP case, it would be an "IPP"
server, not an "HTTP" server.

Basically, its to not "preclude" the future wherein full URLs might be passed
around. Without this capability, full URL support would require retrofitting
the entire HTTP/IPP deployment space.

Again, this particular scenario for IPP schemes on the wire is only a "server"
requirement in this proposal. Clients are still required to follow HTTP 1.1
guidelines set forth in 2068 (and later drafts). Which means (for now), the
"ipp" scheme would NOT show up on the wire because clients would never send
it.

Randy

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Bergman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 5:30 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPP> Proposal for new IPP scheme

There have been several messages recently indicating that the ipp scheme
proposal would not appear "on the wire".

My understanding, both from the teleconference last week and the proposal
recently submitted by Randy Turner, is that this is incorrect.  The
proposal is to send "ipp://...." on the wire!  This is how a server is
able to determine that the port number is the ipp default and not port 80.

Now, how many out there still support this proposal?

 Ron Bergman
 Dataproducts Corp.