Tom,
I did not interpret Keith's response the same as you did. I do not see a new
port and scheme mandated, but I do see a need to justify our position
regardless of which path we take. To quote Keith:
"If you use the IPP port I think ipp: would be okay."
My only concern is that we have not made a sufficient case for a new port and
scheme. Just saying it is a different protocol is not sufficient. Certainly
Paul Moore believed that it is not a new protocol. This issue needs more
discussion.
Ron Bergman
Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions
'
"Hastings, Tom N" wrote:
> Keith,
>> Thanks for answering all our questions about the "IPP Notification Delivery
> Protocol over HTTP".
>> So we'll use a new URL scheme: 'ipp-ntfy' with a new default port to be
> assigned by IANA.
>> And we'll use the same post HTTP method, rather than a new HTTP method.
>> We'll update the INTERNET-DRAFT accordingly.
>> Thanks,
> Tom
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore at cs.utk.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 18:56
> To: Hastings, Tom N
> Cc: Ron Bergman; moore at cs.utk.edu; ipp
> Subject: Re: IPP> NOT - How about using a new HTTP method for the "IPP
> No tification Delivery Protocol over HTTP"
>> I glanced over the draft -won't have time to read it in detail
> until mid-November at the earliest.
>> some notes, mostly typed in before I read the draft:
>> - IPP notifications should not default to port 80. if you don't want to
> use the same port as for IPP (and I can imagine instances where this
> would cause problems) then you should allocate another port.
>> if you let the port be setable on notificaiton servers, and if you let
> the requestor of the notification specify the URL to
> which the notification should be sent, then the port assignment is
> less of an issue - it can be specified in the URL using whatever
> port will get through the various firewalls that might be in
> the way (if there is such a port at all!) still, it would be better
> to have a port number allocated for this purpose, even if the requestor
> can specify a different port number, as this minimizes conflict.
>> - similarly, IPP notifications should not use http:. If you
> use the IPP port I think ipp: would be okay. If you define a
> completely new port a new prefix would be appropriate.
> I'd like to avoid the situation where the default port
> for URL type xyz: is different depending on what you're
> using it for - let's keep a one-to-one correspondence between
> URLs and default ports.
>> - Defining a new HTTP method is okay, and the HTTP crowd will be
> happier about it than if you use POST again. But you're already
> using POST for IPP, so I don't see any reason to insist that you define
> a new method for IPP notifications.
>> does this answer the questions?