Re: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Mon, 13 July 1998 17:59 UTC

Delivery-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:59:04 -0400
Message-Id: <199807131752.NAA03159@spot.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: Randy Turner <rturner@sharplabs.com>
cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, ipp@pwg.org, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 13 Jul 1998 08:43:50 PDT." <199807131550.IAA17620@mail.pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:52:06 -0400
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?

Basically, the difference is that in the compromise proposal,
the ipp: stuff never appears at the HTTP layer.  So it's not 
going to break any of the proxies or client APIs or servers.

Keith