IPP> regarding "ipp:" (I spoke too soon...)

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On a careful re-reading the list of resolutions for the IPP 
documents, I was surprised to see that the WG had decided not 
to adopt an "ipp:" URL prefix.  (I was out of town last
week and unable to follow the list as closely as I would
have liked.)

In my earlier poll of IESG there was strong agreement that both
a separate port and a new URL prefix were needed, though the
questions were not asked separately  We're having a phone 
conference on July 2 (today or tomorrow depending on your
current time zone), so I'll ask them again just to be sure.

Other than the issue with interoperability with http proxies 
(which are easily addressed), I'd like to know what the
technical problems were with using an "ipp:" prefix.  I've
reviewed most of the list discussion since the teleconference
that I participated in, and didn't see any good explanation
of why this would cause problems.

Keith