Alex.
> rdebry@us.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> > Classification:
> > Prologue:
> > Epilogue:
> >
> > I have been thinking about this issue and the proposal to split out the
> > MIME-type encoding as a separate RFC. I don't know if firewalls look at the
> > MIME type of data being passed through or not (the Content-Type header of the
> > entity body). However, if we encode the entire IPP message in a new MIME type,
> > say something like IPP/Mixed, then it at least offers firewall administrators
> > to shut of printing through the firewall based on MIME type. I also like this
> > approach because it allows us to completely define the semantics and syntax of
> > the content, without worrying about baggage from currently defined MIME-types.
> > One example of baggage that I object to is the requirement to use boundary
> > strings in Multipart-mixed messages. Lengths are much better!
> > ---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 12/17/96 07:46
> > AM ---------------------------
> >
>
>
> In my experiences with firewalls (TIS, Checkpoint, etc.), no firewall
> filters
> exist that filter on MIME type. This is an application layer object and
> is
> at least one level above (maybe more) where firewall filters are
> looking.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
>
> --
> Randy Turner
> Network Architect
> Sharp Laboratories of America
> rturner@sharplabs.com