Now that I think about it, I might not make it to Tucson, so it would be
better for me to have something more concrete for San Diego.
Manros, Carl-Uno B" wrote:
>> I expect that we could spend some time on this towards end of the Tucson
> meeting, otherwise in San Diego. Can you be prepared to give us an
> overview and refresher about SASL to get us warm?
>> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Randy Turner [mailto:rturner at sharplabs.com]
> > Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 11:54 AM
> > To: ipp at pwg.org> > Subject: IPP> Future IPP security mechanisms
> > Concerning our discussions about what IPP v1.1 (or later) will consist
> > of, I would like the group to re-address the idea of security
> > and SASL.
> > To converge on a single port number for security, I think
> > SASL provides
> > a very convenient method for doing this. With the publication of
> > RFC 2245 regarding an "anonymous" SASL profile, I think we
> > can do a much
> > better job at umambiguously specifying how security is enabled or
> > disabled. I'm also trying to remove the burden on related SLP and LDAP
> > schemas regarding secure and non-secure URLs.
> > If we are willing to discuss this further, I would like to add it to
> > the agenda of either the Tucson or San Diego meetings.
> > (?)
> > Randy