IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme

Re: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme

Keith Moore (moore@cs.utk.edu)
Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:52:06 -0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Zehler, Peter : "IPP> IPP Implementors contact list"
Previous message: Carl Kugler: "Re: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme"
Maybe in reply to: Keith Moore: "IPP> Re: IPP Scheme"
Next in thread: don@lexmark.com: "RE: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme"

> I can appreciate the need for compromise, given your earlier message, but
> I'm not sure I completely understand the difference between your
> compromise, and our "ipp:" URL usage model that we sent out to you. It
> looks like you're suggesting using the HTTP header part of our proposal,
> and trying to use "ipp:" URLs within the application/ipp
> part where appropriate, which is basically what our usage model stated.
>
> Could you do a "diff" on our document and your compromise for the DL?

Basically, the difference is that in the compromise proposal,
the ipp: stuff never appears at the HTTP layer. So it's not
going to break any of the proxies or client APIs or servers.

Keith

Next message: Zehler, Peter : "IPP> IPP Implementors contact list"
Previous message: Carl Kugler: "Re: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme"
Maybe in reply to: Keith Moore: "IPP> Re: IPP Scheme"
Next in thread: don@lexmark.com: "RE: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme"