[Carl Uno Manros wrote...]
>> Thanks for taking the time to put your ideas on paper.
>> I looked over your proposal and would like you to comment on the
> I expect to get back with more detailed comments after having spoken
> to my
> security guys on Monday.
>> 1) I was disappointed that you did not spell out what is now the
> "extra stuff" that every implementation would have to include if we
> mandated TLS negotiation for all IPP clients and servers. My latest
> impression is that it is a lot more than we anticipated when the
> was discussed in the Boulder PWG meeting.
I modified my stand in Boulder to require the minimum negotiated
security to be MD5 message digest, this is in order to be
with some web servers that use SSL3 but might not be able to
negotiate down to NO security. Also, after thinking about it, it
make much sense to have an encapsulation without utilizing it to
degree. MD5 message digest is a very simple security mechanism
that, even in intranet environments, would not be a burden to
And in the cases where a minimally compliant printer would be
across a possibly insecure topology (i.e., the internet), then
at least the
minimally compliant printer could offer some level of security.
I don't think
this minimal level of security is too much to ask from an
[Turner, Randy] [end]
>> 2) Earlier today Keith Moore came up with a proposal to take a new
> look at
> SASL, which might eliviate some of the extra burden that 1) above
> incur. Do you or anybody else knows if "the world" is really going to
> implement SASL in the foreseeable future (or are we up against yet
> road block here)? Judging from the comments on the DL recently, a
> number of
> people have asked for a very light weight mechanism to do the initial
> security negotiation, with the option to say "NO I do not want any
> security", and I am still not convinced that TLS will deliver that.
All I can say is to read the TLS specification. Its quite clear
what it is and is not capable of doing.