IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> New HTTP Methods vs POST -Reply
Re: IPP> New HTTP Methods vs POST -Reply
Larry Masinter (
masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:03:27 PST
Scott A. Isaacson wrote:
> I think that we should keep with the name IPP and keep it as simple as
> possible. The print protocol (semantics and operations) should basically
> be the same across all mappings on any transport(s). In other words
> there could be a mapping of IPP on:
>
> 1. HTTP 1.0 POST
> 2. HTTP 1.1 POST (taking advantage of new 1.1 underlying features)
> 3. HTTP 1.x extended methods
> 4. Raw TCP
> 5. Internet RPCs
> 6. IIOP
> 7. etc, etc.
>
> In other words, lets not create two things, but one thing. Call it IPP. Then
> as Randy and you have pointed out in later (than this) emails, propose
> multiple "mapping documents".
>
> I am still in favor of #1 above (HTTP 1.0 POST) or protoptyping and
> reasonable first step deployment. Maybe we will learn more as we go
> through the first step which will make additional choices more clear.
1 vs 2:
If you're going to use HTTP, use HTTP/1.1. POST in HTTP/1.0 had a
problem
because of the requirement for content-length: you'd have to spool the
entire print job locally in order to submit it reliably.
2 vs 3:
Do what makes sense. There's no value in "first 2, then 3". So if 2
works,
keep it, and if it doesn't work, don't try to do it first.
4:
I think people were seriously suggesting that IPP be an option on top
of LPR.
5 & 6:
IIOP is a kind of Internet RPC. Actually, HTTP is a kind of Internet RPC
too, so it's the same.