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

[Paul Moore <[e-mail]>]

My fundamental objection is that we are being asked to use a new concept
'psuedo-schemes' without this idea being drilled into at all. There should
at least be an I-Draft discussing the idea.

Secondly there were many details that needed to be clarified. Was this
simply a client convenience or did 'ipp:' ever go over the wire being the
deepest one. The general idea seems to be that it is a user convenience
thing. In this case it is a client implementation issue and has nothing to
do with the wire protocol (which is what this discussion is about) and so
should not be accepted. If its meant to appear on the wire then this raises
a whole bunch of issues that we havent even thought about - and the only
benefit is to make the url slightly more user friendly.



-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 9:46 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: IPP> regarding "ipp:" (I spoke too soon...)


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