> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 12:28 PM
> To: Carl-Uno Manros
> Cc: Keith Moore; ipp@pwg.org; masinter@parc.xerox.com;
> moore@cs.utk.edu
> Subject: Re: IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new scheme and port
>
>
> I've been thinking about the interaction of an ipp: URL and
> the installed base of proxies that support http: but will not
> understand ipp:
>
> Whenever an IPP client is configured to use a proxy, it would probably
> make sense to have the client send
> "POST http://foo.bar:XXX/zot HTTP/1.1" to the proxy when attempting
> to talk to the ipp object "ipp://foo.bar/zot".
>
> As far as I can tell from a very casual analysis, this is the only
> place where it would be necessary to actually send the string "http:"
> to refer to a ipp object. Every other URI that refers to a ipp object
> could use "ipp:" instead.
>
> I don't see a problem with doing things this way, as long as it's
> clearly documented. Perhaps it would be wise to add a section called
> something like "Tunneling of IPP requests over HTTP proxies" to the
> protocol document that specified such details.
>
> Keith
>
>
>