W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

RE: IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for existing HTTP servers

From: Turner, Randy <rturner@sharplabs.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:57:24 -0700
Message-Id: <D10983CAC30DD111B41400805FA6A1C14AB103@admsrvnt02.enet.sharplabs.com>
To: 'Josh Cohen' <joshco@microsoft.com>, "'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>

If this gets down to a point where we HAVE to modify our specification,
then I agree with Josh, it would be much better to differentiate based
on HTTP method than on URL scheme, (IMHO). (But I think its ok as it
stands now)

Randy


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Josh Cohen [SMTP:joshco@MICROSOFT.com]
	Sent:	Monday, June 01, 1998 10:54 AM
	To:	'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'
	Subject:	RE: IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new
scheme and port for  existing HTTP servers

	I think its fine to have a new default dest port 
	associated with IPP, but a new URL scheme seems like more
	trouble than may be apparent.

	For one, even though IPP is a different service than HTTP,
	an IPP client *is* speaking HTTP, IMHO.  HTTP is used as
	a layer underneath IPP.  So, I think the URL scheme
	should continue to be http://..

	Using a new URL scheme will certainly break compatibility
	with existing proxies.  Proxy server's encountering a new
	scheme will fail unless they are modified to understand it.

	As I've stated before, I think the best way to differentiate
	the service and remain compatible with existing proxy servers
	is to use a new method on the request line.


	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov
	> [mailto:hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov]
	> Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 10:31 AM
	> To: Carl-Uno Manros; http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
	> Cc: ipp@pwg.org
	> Subject: IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new scheme and
port for
	> existing HTTP servers
	> 
	> 
	> Carl-Uno,
	> 	By "scheme" in the text below, do you mean a
	> new HTTP method, parallel to GET and POST, or something
	> else?
	> 		regards,
	> 			Ted Hardie
	> 			NASA NIC
	> 
	> > 1) the introduction of a new scheme called "ipp"
	> > 2) the introduction a new default port number for IPP
servers.
	> >
	> > Before the IPP WG responds to those suggestions, the IPP WG 
	> would like to
	> > get some advice from the HTTP WG on the implications of 
	> such a change.
	> > In particular, we want some feedback on how easy or 
	> difficult it would be
	> > to configure existing web servers to accomodate the 
	> suggested changes.
	> 
Received on Monday, 1 June 1998 10:58:41 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:18 EDT