IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Where do we stand in the debate?

Re: IPP> Where do we stand in the debate?

Randy Turner (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:56:20 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Keith Moore: "Re: IPP> possible compromise?"
Previous message: Harry Lewis: "Re: IPP> possible compromise?"

At 11:02 AM 7/15/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Carl-Uno. thank you very much for the summary. This is quite helpful. I would
>like to seek even further clarification.
>
>>"ipp:" will NEVER be used on the HTTP layer.
>
>Is this the same as saying that (by example)
>ipp://my.printer.com will ALWAYS mean
>http://my.printer.com:631
>and (by further example)
>ipp://my.printer.com:444 will mean
>http://my.printer.com:444?
>
>
>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>

I don't think that's what the compromise says. The quick take is,

1. "Published" URLs (that users and administrators will see) will be "ipp:"
URLs.
2. Within application/ipp body parts, "ipp:" URLs will be used to reference
IPP printer and job objects.
3. But you will never see "ipp:" URLs in HTTP 1.1 request headers.

This is very close to our usage model published last week at Monterey.

Randy

Next message: Keith Moore: "Re: IPP> possible compromise?"
Previous message: Harry Lewis: "Re: IPP> possible compromise?"