IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme

"Larry Masinter" <masinter@parc.xerox.com> Tue, 14 July 1998 19:50 UTC

Delivery-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:50:29 -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 PAA13214 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:50:27 -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 PAA11026 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:50:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA01349 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:50:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:45:01 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA00783 for ipp-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:41:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
To: <walker@dazel.com>
Cc: <don@lexmark.com>, <ipp@pwg.org>
Subject: RE: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:40:56 PDT
Message-ID: <003101bdaf5f$5191b760$15d0000d@copper-208.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
In-Reply-To: <35AB44BC.B968910B@dazel.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org

Don:
> > Web: http://www.lexmark.com
> > Printer: http://printer1.bldg035.lexmark.com
me:

> compliant product you will have to write
> 
> Web: http://www.lexmark.com
> Printer: http://printer1.bldg035.lexmark.com:631

Jim:
> But, Larry, you forget that 631 is just a *default* port.  There
> is absolutely nothing that says a conforming implementation can't
> allow usage on other ports (just as a web server allows usage of
> ports other than 80).
> 
> So, Don's example is completely legitimate and accurate.  His
> administrator (you do have your private sysadmin, don't you
> Don ;-) simply chose to configure his IPP printer to run on
> port 80.

Doesn't this just support the assertion that that using the
"http" would encourage end-users to reconfigure the printers
on their LANs to use the non-standard port 80, merely so
that their users can put "http://printer1.bldg35.lexmark.com" on
their business cards?

Larry

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email