I agree with Randy. My preference order would be the following:
1) Leave as currently specified
2) Use new http method(s) instead of POST
3) Use new "ipp:" scheme instead of http (least desirable and major
deployment issues in my opinion)
--Xavier
At 11:02 AM 6/1/98 PDT, you wrote:
>>>>If this gets down to a point where we HAVE to modify our specification,
>then I agree with Josh, it would be much better to differentiate based
>on HTTP method than on URL scheme, (IMHO). (But I think its ok as it
>stands now)
>Randy
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Cohen [SMTP:joshco at MICROSOFT.com]
><mailto:[SMTP:joshco at MICROSOFT.com]>
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 10:54 AM
> To: 'http-wg at cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'
> Subject: RE: IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new
> scheme and port for existing HTTP servers
>>I think its fine to have a new default dest port associated with IPP,
>but a new URL scheme seems like more trouble than may be apparent.
>For one, even though IPP is a different service than HTTP, an IPP client
>*is* speaking HTTP, IMHO. HTTP is used as a layer underneath IPP. So,
>I think the URL scheme should continue to be http://. <http://.> .
>Using a new URL scheme will certainly break compatibility with existing
>proxies. Proxy server's encountering a new scheme will fail unless they
>are modified to understand it.
>As I've stated before, I think the best way to differentiate the service
>and remain compatible with existing proxy servers is to use a new method
>on the request line.
>> >
>>
______________________________________________________________________
Xavier Riley
Xerox Corp.
Corp. Research & Tech. Voice: 310-333-8329 / 8*823-8329
701 S. Aviation Blvd ESAE-231 Fax: 310-333-6618 / 8*823-6618
El Segundo, California 90245 Email: xriley at cp10.es.xerox.com
______________________________________________________________________