Josh, I think you've misread the chart. For the proposal that puts the "ipp:" scheme ON THE WIRE, we listed "Breaks most installed proxies. At best proxies have to be reconfigured". The column that says "No impact" for Proxies is for the Larry's proposal (http://www.findmail.com/list/ipp/3754.html) which is actually HTTP on the wire. (See http://www.findmail.com/list/ipp/3785.html for more info.)
-Carl
>
> In the case of the new method, most current proxies will be
> able to handle it with minimal effort, as you indicated, some will
> handle it as shipped (MSproxy) and some will need a patch. (squid)
> If this is a holdup for a new method, I volunteer to submit
> a patch to the squid group to fix this.
>
> To use a new scheme means that proxies must understand the
> IPP protocol inner workings (which means that it has to know
> that its really just HTTP on the wire). To use a new
> method means that IPP is a service on HTTP that is identified
> by its different method (PRINT).
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roger K Debry [mailto:rdebry@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 1:00 PM
> > To: ipp@pwg.org
> > Subject: IPP> Implications of a new scheme, etc
> >
> >
> > As suggested on Wednesday's teleconference, Harry Lewis,
> > Carl Kugler, and I produced the attached table (in .pdf format)
> > which hopefully summarizes the many views which have been
> > expressed on this subject over the last couple of weeks. Our
> > intent is that this would help support our position with Keith Moore.
> >
> >
> >
> > Roger K deBry
> > Senior Technical Staff Member
> > Architecture and Technology
> > IBM Printing Systems
> > email: rdebry@us.ibm.com
> > phone: 1-303-924-4080
> >
>
>