Re: IPP> clarification needed re: "ipp:" proposal

[Randy Turner <[e-mail]>]

What Larry and I worked on was a quick brief of what we thought were the
major elements of the proposal. It was not an I-D. If sufficient interest
exists in pursuing the proposal (by the WG, IESG, or anyone else), then we
will definitely translate the brief into a draft. The I-D would outline the
exact details, however just FYI, I believe either "ipp" or "http" schemes
MAY be included, but this is dependent upon the means used to determine the
URL in the first place. The administrator of such a service would publish
which ever URL was appropriate for how his/her server is configured.

Randy


At 07:51 PM 7/3/98 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>On re-reading the proposal again, I realize that I might have misunderstood 
>it.  The proposal doesn't seem to say whether http: URLs are allowed in IPP
>protocol elements (as opposed to HTTP request headers when talking to
>a proxy.)  On earlier readings I thought it had said that http: would be
>allowed.
>
>So it would help to have the proposal explicitly state whether ipp:
>URLs (SHOULD|MUST) be used in IPP protocol elements when referring to 
>printer or job objects, and whether http: URLs (MAY|SHOULD NOT|MUST NOT)
>be used.  And if http: URLs are going to be allowed at this level, 
>please explain why they are needed or useful.
>
>thanks,
>
>Keith
>