IPP> MOD - Issue 2: How can client force authentication, i.e ., identi fied mode?

IPP> MOD - Issue 2: How can client force authentication, i.e ., identi fied mode?

IPP> MOD - Issue 2: How can client force authentication, i.e ., identi fied mode?

Herriot, Robert Robert.Herriot at pahv.xerox.com
Tue Mar 23 21:16:09 EST 1999


I think that we concluded that a request for a basic/digest challenge is
orthogonal to a TLS request. Thus, if we accept this option (and I don't
think we should), we must add a new header and not just a new value to
"upgrade".

Bob Herriot

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 6:06 PM
> To: Hastings, Tom N
> Cc: IETF-IPP
> Subject: RE: IPP> MOD - Issue 2: How can client force authentication,
> i.e ., identi fied mode?
> 
> 
> Tom,
> 
> You did not get the last alternative that I suggested quite right.
> It would NOT require a NEW header, we would use the Upgrade header 
> in the same way that we use it for TLS in IPP/1.1 already. We
> will need to register a new value for the existing header.
> 
> Carl-Uno
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 5:24 PM
> > To: ipp
> > Subject: IPP> MOD - Issue 2: How can client force 
> > authentication, i.e.,
> > identi fied mode?
> > 
> > 
> > Here is the third issue from the Bake Off that has several possible
> > alternatives.  This issue has also had a lot of email 
> > discussion since the
> > Bake Off.  We list some additional alternatives to adding a 
> > new operation.
> > What do people think of the alternatives?
> > 
> > Tom
> > 
> > 2)  ISSUE:  How can client force identified mode?
> > 
> > If an IPP Printer supports both authenticated and unauthenticated
> > access, there is no way for a client to force itself to be
> > authenticated, i.e., be in identified mode, since it is the 
> > server that
> > forces authentication by issuing a challenge to the client.  It is
> > very useful for a client to be able to get into identified 
> > mode as soon
> > as possible.  Today you have to wait to be challenged by the server,
> > which may never happen -- or happens at an unpredictable time.  The
> > security conformance requires that the authentication for 
> > operations be
> > the same for all operations.  So for authenticated Cancel-Job, the
> > Print-Job has to be authenticated as well.  We would like to 
> > add another
> > operation that forces the server to generate a 401 authentication
> > challenge which the client would submit before submitting the 
> > print job
> > in the first place.  Unless somebody has a different solution
> > (Microsoft)
> > 
> > 
> > Possible alternatives:
> > 
> > 1.Add the operation as an OPTIONAL operation to IPP/1.0 and IPP/1.1
> >   that forces the IPP object to issue a challenge to the client.
> > 
> > 2.Use two URLs for the same IPP Printer object, one requires
> >   authentication and the IPP server always issues a 
> challenge and the
> >   other never does.  So the client that wants to be authenticated
> >   submits requests to the URL that requires authentication.  
> > ISSUE: How
> >   does the client discover which URL to use, since "uri-security-
> >   supported" is about security, not authentication?
> > 
> > 3.Use two IPP Printer objects that fan-in to the same 
> device.  One IPP
> >   Printer object requires authentication and always issues the
> >   challenge and the other never does.  ISSUE:  How does the client
> >   discover which IPP Printer to use for authenticated access?
> > 
> > 4.Request that the HTTP WG add some kind of header that allows the
> >   client to request that the HTTP server issue a challenge.  
> > ISSUE:  It
> >   is unlikely that the HTTP group would do such a thing, since it is
> >   not needed for the usual use of HTTP which is to access 
> documents on
> >   a server.
> > 
> > 
> 



More information about the Ipp mailing list