IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tom Hastings <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> Thu, 02 July 1998 19:31 UTC

Delivery-Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 15:31:20 -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 PAA10180 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:31:15 -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 PAA22975 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:33:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA03617 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:31:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:27:06 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA03034 for ipp-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:22:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980702122223.00c079b0@garfield>
X-Sender: hastings@garfield
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:22:23 PDT
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
From: Tom Hastings <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
Subject: Re: IPP> regarding "ipp:" (I spoke too soon...)
Cc: Paul Moore <paulmo@microsoft.com>, "'Keith Moore'" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, ipp@pwg.org, moore@cs.utk.edu
In-Reply-To: <199807021843.OAA11349@spot.cs.utk.edu>
Illegal-Object: Syntax error in References: value found on alpha.xerox.com: References: <Yourmessage of"Thu, 02 Jul 1998 11:24:48 PDT." <CB6657D3A5E0D111A97700805FFE6587BF6E2C@red-msg-51.dns.microsoft.com> ^-illegal end of message identification
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org

At 11:43 07/02/98 PDT, Keith Moore wrote:
>> Not so. Every IPP packet is a fully conformant HTTP packet. We are not
>> inventing a new protocol in the scheme sense. 
>
>That's not the way IESG sees it.  IPP is chartered to develop a protocol.

Yes, but the WG chose to use an approach in which IPP server applications
could be implemented on existing HTTP web servers.  If it is a new protocol,
then we can't use existing deployed web servers, correct?

>
>If you are having problems that no other working group is having, 
>because you're layering over http, maybe you're taking the wrong approach.
>
>> Point any lan sniffer at an
>> IPP exchange and ask it what the protocol is - it will say its HTTP. 
>
>This could be considered a bug with IPP.
>
>> The argument you are using would say that SMTP is not TCP/IP. 
>> IPP is layered on top of HTTP - same way that form-based upload is.
>
>HTTP is an application by itself.  TCP/IP is not.  
>IPP is trying to layer one application on top of another.

True.  However, layering one application on another has been the experience
in OSI and other layered architectures.  Being constrained to only 7 levels
is not allowing one application to build on another.

>
>Keith
>
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email