Subject: Re: IPP> regarding "ipp:" (I spoke too soon...)

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 08:31:11 -0700

Keith,

Please see this attachment which describes the proposal worked out by Randy
Turner and Larry Masinter. Case 3 in that proposal caused a number of people
to object, pointing out that the previous assumption that ipp: would not be
used over the wire was not true any more. There was also discussion about
which format the IPP Printer generated Job URIs should have. They are hardly
ever seen by and end user and could as well be in http: format. The result
would have been that the client would have had to cover for  URIs coming
back in either scheme and always have to be able to convert between them.
The more we discussed this, the more causes we found that the ipp: scheme
was not such a bright idea after all. As for the suggestion to include a
security paramter in the ipp: scheme, this was adviced against also by Randy
and Larry, as it would make the ipp: non-mappable in the http: to ipp:
direction. We believe that the current solution to identify what security is
supported by a printer works well without the need for a parameter in the
scheme.

This is my short answer and explanation right now. I assume that other
members of the WG can give you further arguments, but many have already
started their July 4th celebrations.

Carl-Uno

At 12:46 AM 7/2/98 -0400, you wrote:
>On a careful re-reading the list of resolutions for the IPP 
>documents, I was surprised to see that the WG had decided not 
>to adopt an "ipp:" URL prefix.  (I was out of town last
>week and unable to follow the list as closely as I would
>have liked.)
>
>In my earlier poll of IESG there was strong agreement that both
>a separate port and a new URL prefix were needed, though the
>questions were not asked separately  We're having a phone 
>conference on July 2 (today or tomorrow depending on your
>current time zone), so I'll ask them again just to be sure.
>
>Other than the issue with interoperability with http proxies 
>(which are easily addressed), I'd like to know what the
>technical problems were with using an "ipp:" prefix.  I've
>reviewed most of the list discussion since the teleconference
>that I participated in, and didn't see any good explanation
>of why this would cause problems.
>
>Keith
>
>

---

From: Randy Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 17:00:13 -0700

There were no operational problems with the proposal, I think what the
group boiled down to was that creating a new "ipp" scheme just for end-user
convenience was not enough justification. I don't remember any specific
examples of how the proposal would break if deployed.

Randy