Subject: IPP> Re: On the harm of adding new methods

From: Roger K Debry <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:34:12 -0400

But will the content-type be ok in both directions?  What is the
content-type of an ipp response?  If it is not also application/ipp,
then you could easily create a situation in which the request can be
sent and pass through the filter, but the response cannot...

<RKD> What would prevent the response from passing?

<RKD> What is the Alternative?  If we use the PRINT method on a request,
<RKD> what is the response?

---

From: [email-masked] (Ira Mcdonald x10962)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:36:41 PDT

Hi folks,

Yes, the content-type of IPP requests AND responses is ALWAYS
'application/ipp'.  That was decided a long time ago.
This isn't a legitimate concern

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald (High North)
-------------------------------------------------------
[the thread]
>From [email-masked] Wed Jun 10 12:32:55 1998
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:15:11 PDT
From: Scott Lawrence <[email-masked]>
To: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Cc: Josh Cohen <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: IPP> Re: On the harm of adding new methods
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: R

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Larry Masinter wrote:

> Any new METHOD in HTTP is a serious modification to the protocol, because
> the forwarding function must be aware of it. A new content-type, however,
> can be as easily recognized in the filter layer as a new method, but
> requires NO changes to the forwarding function. Many filters already filter
> on content-type anyway.