Re: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme

Randy Turner <rturner@sharplabs.com> Mon, 13 July 1998 15:54 UTC

Delivery-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:54:42 -0400
Message-Id: <199807131550.IAA17620@mail.pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 08:43:50 -0700
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
From: Randy Turner <rturner@sharplabs.com>
Subject: Re: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme
Cc: ipp@pwg.org
In-Reply-To: <199807131515.LAA02769@spot.cs.utk.edu>
References: <Your message of "Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:05:33 EDT." <C544ABD0476AD11198490000C02B9F1506FB75@DCCEXCH>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org

I can appreciate the need for compromise, given your earlier message, but
I'm not sure I completely understand the difference between your
compromise, and our "ipp:" URL usage model that we sent out to you. It
looks like you're suggesting using the HTTP header part of our proposal,
and trying to use "ipp:" URLs within the application/ipp
part where appropriate, which is basically what our usage model stated.

Could you do a "diff" on our document and your compromise for the DL?

Thanks

Randy