Subject: IPP> Scott's Presentation for the BOF -Reply

From: Scott Isaacson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 12:38:48 -0700

Roger,

Thanks for the comments.  I have made some of the suggested changes
and have put a new version out called ipp-info2.(ppt, ps).  

For everyone else that is afraid they didn't have time to comment, feel
free to make additional comments.  For Roger's sake, I mostly wanted to
add some pictures and some scenarios and get feedback on those as
soon as possible.  I agree that these are needed.  What do you think of
the approach I took?

Also, Roger, one of the comments came from Alex:

------------------------------------
What's the REAL benefit of using HTTP? I mean, while you use a Web
browser you still need a helper app to give the user a nice
frontend. What's the difference between this and simply using some
generic TCP stream like SMTP has been doing for fifteen years now?

The reason I bring this up is because a lot of network admins have
been very criticial of the very poor design of the original HTTP and
the uncontrollable resource requirements of Web browser. Someone is
bound to ask this question.

P.S.: While buzzword-compliance does not count as an answer, it
      certainly is accepted as a design criterium to ensure success of
      the project ;-)

--
Alex Bochannek                 Phone & Fax : +1 408 526 51 91
Senior Network Analyst         Pager       : +1 408 485 90 92
Engineering Services           Alpha Pager : (800) 225-0256 PIN 104536
Cisco Systems, Inc.            Email       : [email-masked]
170 West Tasman Drive, Bldg. E Pager Email :
[email-masked]
San Jose, CA 95134-1706, USA
------------------------------------

Do we have a write up on this specific issue?  Could you (Roger) try to
craft an answer for this?  I can't remember if the rational for HTTP is in
the I-D anywhere.

Scott

---

From: Alex Bochannek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 96 11:44:04 PST

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I am against using HTTP
in the way you propose.

- You define a special port
- You define a special content-type
- You define use of a command subset

To me that means you have a different protocol. Why not write a two
page draft that defines the access type ipp:// and just run straight
IPP over a TCP session? Much easier (I think)

Alex.