Subject: RE: IPP> What is it we really need?

From: Babak Jahromi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:31:01 -0800

You are right in saying that a stock internet server and client tools
alone won't be enough to implement IPP, but the fact is that the HTTP
extension standards like CGI or ISAPI are so popular and so pervasive
that you guys can all bet your software house can eaily implement an
HTTP based IPP standard using these stock tools. Tools for CGI and ISAPI
programming will only get better, helping the development of these
HTTP-based protocols. This is why I, as a programmer, rather be using
them over months of low level TCP/Sockets programming.

The same story is true on the client side. Any worthy Internet client
machine better have easy to use APIs to allow an app to talk HTTP
(Microsoft's OSes certainly offer that today). This means that your
programmers will again be happy hearing you guys have agreed upon an
HTTP based protocol since all they have to do is to use these rich APIs
to implement it (ask any programmer who codes Internet software for a
living).

Babak

>One comment I would like to make about people chanting the "Stock HTTP
>Server" mantra:
>
>"The Common Gateway Interface, or CGI, is a standard for external
>gateway programs to interface with information servers such as HTTP
>servers."
>
>This is the definition to be found on the NCSA Web pages. And from all
>the implementation suggestions, it sure sounds like HTTP is only going
>to be used for hand-through to the "external gateway program". Not
>much benefit in using the "Stock HTTP Server".
>
>Babak from Microsoft has pretty much made the same point in his mail
>from a couple of days ago.
>
>--
>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
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 08:17:58 -0500

Classification:
Prologue:
Epilogue:

---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 01/06/97 06:10
AM ---------------------------

        ipp-owner @ pwg.org
        01/05/97 01:41 PM

Keith Moore wrote:

>p.s. Several people have expressed interest in an "http-lite" protocol,
>that is, a generic http-like, text-over-tcp, request-response protocol
>which isn't adapted for any one particular application, but can
>take adavntage of standard url types, security mechanisms, etc.

Keith, I definately think that the notion of an http-lite is worth pursuing.
It has the value of providing
a lot of common underlying services for many applications -- which is, I think,
the value we see
in basing IPP on http.  The question is, how do we proceed?