IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: IPP> Proposal for new IPP scheme

"Larry Masinter" <masinter@parc.xerox.com> Wed, 17 June 1998 20:01 UTC

Delivery-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 16:01:48 -0400
Return-Path: ipp-owner@pwg.org
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (ns.cnri.reston.va.us [132.151.1.1]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id QAA21859 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 16:01:33 -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 QAA15433 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 16:03:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA05128 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 16:01:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Wed, 17 Jun 1998 15:57:25 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA04589 for ipp-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 15:54:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
To: Roger K Debry <rdebry@us.ibm.com>
Cc: ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> Proposal for new IPP scheme
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:52:58 -0700
Message-ID: <000101bd9a29$86c2ec60$aa66010d@copper.parc.xerox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
In-Reply-To: <5030100021890730000002L002*@MHS>
Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org

> In response to Randy's post ...
> 
> POST http://myhost.com:374/myprinter/myqueue HTTP/1.1
> Host: myproxy.com:374
> Content-type: application/ipp
> Transfer-Encoding: chunked
> 
> <RKD> Why would the Host line have the 374 port?

Please see section 14.23 ("Host") of draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-03.txt
which lays out the requirements and conditions more clearly.

> 3. A full IPP URL   (e.g., ipp://myhost.com/myprinter/myqueue)
> 
> <RKD> I don't understand why this would be required. If it
> <RKD> is, then I think it breaks the proposal.

Please see section 5.1.2 ("Request-URI") of 
draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-03.txt.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email