IPP> IPP Comments on BOF Presentation - Followup to Reply

IPP> IPP Comments on BOF Presentation - Followup to Reply

IPP> IPP Comments on BOF Presentation - Followup to Reply

kcarter at VNET.IBM.COM kcarter at VNET.IBM.COM
Wed Dec 4 15:05:50 EST 1996


Thanks for your reply.  My response indicated inline by <<KC>>.


  ---------------------------- Note:    -------------------------------------

  To: ipp @ pwg.org at internet
  cc: kcarter @ vnet.IBM.COM at internet
  Subject: IPP> Comments on BOF Presentation -Reply


  I agree with most of your comments.  My comments on yours:

  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: scott_isaacson at novell.com
  W: http://www.novell.com

  >>> <kcarter at vnet.IBM.COM> 12/03/96 02:24pm >>>
  4.  Under the End-User bullet, do we need to add a sub-bullet for
      their own print job"?  We might get asked why a user cannot modify
      attributes (e.g. number of copies) of a submitted print job before it
      prints since the major NOS support this capability today.  If we add this
      bullet, we must state that this function is not supported in IPP 1.0 on
      chart #3.
  >>> <kcarter at vnet.IBM.COM> 12/03/96 02:24pm >>>

  We had agreed that yes, modifying a job is "supported" today, however,
  we chose to not need to worry about this with our self-imposed
  "6-month" deadline looming over our heads.  Let's get something going,
  and then make progress on these other more difficult issues later.

<<KC>>  We agree that modify job is an end-user task that is not supported
<<KC>>  in IPP 1.0.  My only point is that in the context of this chart we
<<KC>>  are listing a complete set of requirements for IPP as a whole (e.g.
<<KC>>  note the reference to "operator" and "administrator" on the same
<<KC>>  chart which are not supported in IPP 1.0) so my point is that in that
<<KC>>  context modify job is an overall requirement.  We can then clearly
<<KC>>  show in the IPP 1.0 Objectives chart which end-user tasks are
<<KC>>  supported (i.e. not modify job).  Your thoughts?

  >>> <kcarter at vnet.IBM.COM> 12/03/96 02:24pm >>>
  6.  Under the Administrator bullet, please add a sub-bullet "Access
      I view authorization as the act of assigning the role of "end-user",
      "operator" and "administrator" to each user while access control
      who can print on the printer (e.g. "end-users" barney and betty can
      on a printer but "end-users" fred and wilma cannot print on the
  >>> <kcarter at vnet.IBM.COM> 12/03/96 02:24pm >>>

  I disagree here.  Authroization is not assigning the role to some entity, but
  verifying that some entity is who or what they claim to be.  If I call you on
  the phone and say "Hi this is Scott"  first you must decide if I am really
  Scot before you do anything else.  You might detect the sound of my
  voice or you might look on your caller id.  Once you determine that I am
  really Scott, you can decide to hang up, talk to me casually, or divulge
  your companies most important secrets.  This last part is authorization:
  you assign me (now verified to be Scott) a role: enemy, friend,
  employee.   Assinging of roles IS authorization.    If  barney and betty can
  print  on a printer, they are "end-users"  if  fred and wilma cannot print
  on the printer they are not "end-users".

  <<KC>>  It sounds like that for IPP an "end-user" is authorized to use a
  <<KC>>  a specific printer object.  There can be 0 or more "end-users" per
  <<KC>>  printer object.  If my understanding is correct, then we're in synch.
  <<KC>>  Otherwise, please clarify.



ÿÿ    IPP> COMMENTS ON BOF PRESENTATION -REPLY                             

More information about the Ipp mailing list