Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme
Roger K Debry <rdebry@us.ibm.com> Thu, 16 July 1998 18:35 UTC
Delivery-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:35:08 -0400
Return-Path: ipp-owner@pwg.org
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (ns [132.151.1.1])
by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id OAA19607
for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:35:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lists.underscore.com (uscore-1.mv.com [199.125.85.30])
by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id OAA21971
for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:34:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com
(8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA22701 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>;
Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:35:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:30:35 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id
OAA22101 for ipp-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:27:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Roger K Debry <rdebry@us.ibm.com>
To: <ipp@pwg.org>
Subject: Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme
Message-ID: <5030100023233684000002L042*@MHS>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:25:54 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id OAA19607
I suppose in Don's case it depends on what he means by "administratively set". It almost sounded like port 80 was hard wired in. Can an adminsitrator choose to use a different port Don? Roger K deBry Senior Technical Staff Member Architecture and Technology IBM Printing Systems email: rdebry@us.ibm.com phone: 1-303-924-4080 owner-ipp@pwg.org on 07/16/98 12:12:08 PM Please respond to owner-ipp@pwg.org To: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM@ibmus cc: ipp@pwg.org Subject: Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme I believe that if a product offers compliant operation--but also offers configuration options to disable compliant operation--that the product is still considered compliant. Letting the customer do what the CUSTOMER wants should be ok, right? ...jay ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com -- -- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 -- -- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 -- -- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl Kugler wrote: > > Carl: > > > > The implementation MUST support port 631 however, mine is administratively > > set to only OPERATE on port 80. The code is compliant. > > > > Don > > > > > Hmmm... I think we need some clarification in the wording here, because I think it's ambiguous as it stands. Here's another quote: "IPP server implementations MUST offer IPP services using HTTP over the IANA assigned Well Known Port 631 (the IPP default port). IPP server implementations may support other ports, in addition to this port." > > So you read "suport" and "offer IPP services" to mean "can be configured to listen on" rather than "is required to listen on"? > > -Carl > > > > > > > "Carl Kugler" <kugler%us.ibm.com@interlock.lexmark.com> on 07/16/98 > > 12:18:26 PM > > > > To: ipp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com > > cc: (bcc: Don Wright) > > bcc: Don Wright > > Subject: RE: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > Sorry Larry, but my printer isn't on the default IPP port of 631. Mine > > is > > > on 80 so my URL is exactly right. Not all implementations MUST be on > > 631. > > ... > > That's not how I read ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/ipp-pro-980630 > > > > It says "It is REQUIRED that a printer implementation support HTTP over the > > IANA assigned Well Known Port 631...". Therefore, a conforming > > implementation MUST be on 631, although it might also be on some other port > > simultaneously. > > > > ----- > > Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/ipp/?start=4106 > > Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/ipp/?start=4138 > Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/
- IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme don
- IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Keith Moore
- IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme don
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Scott Lawrence
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme don
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Keith Moore
- RE: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Larry Masinter
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Jim Walker
- RE: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme don
- RE: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Larry Masinter
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Robert Herriot
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Keith Moore
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Robert Herriot
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Keith Moore
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Robert Herriot
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Randy Turner
- RE: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Carl Kugler
- RE: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme don
- RE: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Carl Kugler
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Jay Martin
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Roger K Debry
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme don
- RE: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Robert Herriot
- RE: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Carl Kugler
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Jay Martin
- IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Keith Moore
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme don
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme papowell
- RE: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme papowell
- RE: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Carl Kugler
- RE: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Manros, Carl-Uno B
- Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Robert Herriot