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

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

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

Ron Bergman rbergma at dpc.com
Thu Mar 25 11:30:10 EST 1999


Why would a client ever want to require itself to be authenticated to an
IPP printer?  What protection does this provide to the client?
Authentication only protects the server.  Am I missing something?

Encryption does make sense for a client to specify.

	Ron Bergman
	Dataproducts Corp.


On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Hugo Parra wrote:

> Question on alternative 1:  Does the challenge issued by the IPP object specify what type of credential the user should send?  If so, if the IPP object supports more than one authentication/security method, which one should it request?  
> 
> -Hugo
> 
> >>> "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com> 03/23/99 06:24PM >>>
> 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