Subject: Proposed well known port for printing via HTTP -Reply

From: "Scott A. Isaacson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:38:13 -0700

Harry,  

You won't find this suggestion in the 0.92 version that I just put on the ftp
server.  It is not becuase your write up wasn't superb (which is was), it
is jus that it is late and I forgot!!!.  I will add it to the next version.  Thanks.

Scott

************************************************************
Scott A. Isaacson
Print Services Consulting Engineer
Novell Inc., 122 E 1700 S, Provo, UT 84606
V: (801) 861-7366, (800) 453-1267 x17366
F: (801) 861-4025, E: [email-masked]
W: http://www.novell.com
************************************************************

>>> "Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]>
11/18/96 05:18pm >>>
In the IPP/1.0 draft version 0.91 (11/14), on PDF (no revision marks) line
474, there is reference to a sample (hypothetical) IPP Job name. The
name
is made up of the http protocol indicator, the IP address of the printer, the
"port" and the printer name. Here, the port is an arbitrary example.

  http://1.2.3.4:3042/printer-2

I would like to propose we attempt to standardize a well known port for
printing via http. The notion would be that whatever we define as printing
via http will work over http well known port 80 (along with everything
else
that flows via http), but, if directed to well known port (say 380 -
assuming
this port is not already defined), then only PRINTING, not any other form
of
http, would be expected.

This proposal closely follows the motivation described in the internet
draft
<draft-mellquist-web-sys-00.txt> submitted June 1996, which
recommends
well known port 280 for SNMP over HTTP. Read (3) of this draft for a
more
thorough dissertation on the merits of this approach.

As for text to add to the IPP draft (tonight), I suggest a new head level
created between 2 (Distributed Printing) and 3 (IPP Objects) called
2 (Printing via HTTP). Probably, a lot could be lifted from Roger's
document
and put into this section, I'm not going to try and flesh this out here.
Also, in this section, however, we should put some words like...

  "It will be suggested (in section 5) that Clients identify Printer objects
  using an HTTP type URL. One element of this proposal will be to further
  recommend the establishment, through IANA, of a well known port (380
  recommended) for printing via HTTP. The purpose of this well known
port
  would be to distinguish printing from non-printing content. While any
  acceptable HTTP content could be inter-mixed over HTTP well known
port 80,
  only HTTP printing would be acceptable on port 380.

  The remainder of this draft will define the IPP content for HTTP printing,
  including IPP objects, operations, naming and attributes."

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems