After reading Keith's comments, I think I can capture the arguments on ipp:
versus http: ....
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't!
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't
Yes, it is!
No, it isn't
It seems to me there are few if any clear, overwhelming technical merits on
either side of the proposals. The printing community is firm on how it
believes customers and users will perceive and use IPP and believes "ipp:"
is not the right approach. Since other than encoded within the
application/ipp body, "ipp:" is never on the wire, there is no real
difference from the network's infrastructure (perhaps with the exception of
the security problems of AUTH = or something similar which is another can
of worms.)
Sorry, but I'm still in favor of the product oriented people (the IPP WG)
dealing with user requirements, perception and usability and letting the
networking folks (IESG, etc.) handle the infrastructure details.
Therefore, I continue to not support the use of "ipp:" as described in the
latest text.
**********************************************
* Don Wright don at lexmark.com *
* Product Manager, Strategic Alliances *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
**********************************************