IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: On the harm of adding new methods

Re: IPP> Re: On the harm of adding new methods

Carl-Uno Manros (manros@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:33:18 PDT

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Peter Michalek: "Re: IPP> MOD&PRO - Removing printer-uri & job-uri operation attribute targets"
Previous message: Roger K Debry: "IPP> Re: On the harm of adding new methods"

At 09:15 AM 6/10/98 PDT, Scott Lawrence wrote:
>
>On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Larry Masinter wrote:
>
>> Any new METHOD in HTTP is a serious modification to the protocol, because
>> the forwarding function must be aware of it. A new content-type, however,
>> can be as easily recognized in the filter layer as a new method, but
>> requires NO changes to the forwarding function. Many filters already filter
>> on content-type anyway.
>
> But will the content-type be ok in both directions? What is the
>content-type of an ipp response? If it is not also application/ipp,
>then you could easily create a situation in which the request can be
>sent and pass through the filter, but the response cannot...
>

Scott,

FYI, ALL requests and responses in IPP are in application/ipp format.

Carl-Uno
Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com

Next message: Peter Michalek: "Re: IPP> MOD&PRO - Removing printer-uri & job-uri operation attribute targets"
Previous message: Roger K Debry: "IPP> Re: On the harm of adding new methods"