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

Re: IPP> Implications of introducing new scheme and port f

From: <PETER_E_MELLQUIST@hp-roseville-om3.om.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 19:54:21 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <H0001bcb0ce8c5a1@MHS>
To: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, ipp@pwg.org
     Regarding item #2,
     
     Use of alternative HTTP ports, other than port 80, effects the ability 
     to move through proxies and firewalls. Using alternative port #'s will 
     require reconfiguration of security infrastructure in order to allow 
     for HTTP connections. 
     
     HP has gone through similar work in the definition and standardization 
     of HTTP port 280 for Web Based Management Purposes ( see IANA port 
     list ). Currently port 280 is IANA approved for usage of HTTP for 
     network management. This works fine for Intranet usage, but issues as 
     described above result when operating in a secure environments.
     
     The other issue is that of configuring HTTP servers and proxies to 
     listen on alternative port #s. While easy to do programatically, not 
     all commercial HTTP servers allow listening on multiple ports 
     concurrently.
     
     Considering these two issues, partitioning of the URI space for IPP on 
     HTTP port 80 or HTTP-S (HTTP/(SSL |TLS)) on port 443 makes better 
     sense.
     
     Peter


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: IPP> Implications of introducing new scheme and port for e
Author:  Non-HP-manros (manros@cp10.es.xerox.com) at HP-Roseville,mimegw4
Date:    6/1/98 10:20 AM


Hi,
     
As most of you know already, the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) WG has 
suggested using HTTP as "transport", with the payload in the form of a MIME 
object passed with the POST method.
     
As part of the onging IESG review process, the Application Area Director 
Keith Moore has suggested to distinguish IPP traffic from "normal" HTTP 
traffic by: 
     
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.
     
Please note that many printer vendors are not in the business of developing 
web servers or HTTP servers and are dependent on getting those compoments 
from other vendors.
     
Please respond back to the IPP DL at:
     
        ipp@pwg.org
     
Thanks,
     
Carl-Uno Manros
Chair of the IETF IPP WG
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 1998 08:49:20 EDT

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