Exactly what do you mean when you say NATIVE?
...jay
harryl at us.ibm.com wrote:
>> I think a NATIVE notification protocol would have been a good goal.
>> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
>>don at lexmark.com> Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org> 06/22/2000 02:16 PM
>> To: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS> cc: ipp at pwg.org> Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
>> Just because there are cases where a machine can't get notifications does
> not
> mean we should not standardize it. By making it mandatory, developers of
> products must support it. It doesn't mean that everyone must use it.
> (BTW: I
> am also in favor of making e-mail mandatory).
>> **********************************************
> * Don Wright don at lexmark.com *
> * Chair, Printer Working Group *
> * Chair, IEEE MSC *
> * *
> * Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances *
> * Lexmark International *
> * 740 New Circle Rd *
> * Lexington, Ky 40550 *
> * 859-232-4808 (phone) 859-232-6740 (fax) *
> * (Former area code until 10/1 was 606) *
> **********************************************
>> kugler%us.ibm.com at interlock.lexmark.com on 06/22/2000 04:13:36 PM
>> To: Don_Wright/Lex/Lexmark at LEXMARK> cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
>> Many firewalls allow you to connect many more machines to the Internet
> than
> you have IP addresses for. The addresses behind the firewall may be
> private, unregistered addresses, not globally routable, not globally
> unique.
>> -Carl
>>don at lexmark.com on 06/22/2000 01:40:16 PM
>> To: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS> cc:
> Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
>> Firewalls are configurable.
>> Don
>> kugler%us.ibm.com at interlock.lexmark.com on 06/22/2000 03:33:16 PM
>> To: Don_Wright/Lex/Lexmark at LEXMARK> cc: ipp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
>> Will go through OUTBOUND from a Printer INSIDE to a client OUTSIDE. But
> what if the CLIENT is behind a firewall?
>> -Carl
>>don at lexmark.com on 06/22/2000 12:04:27 PM
>> To: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS> cc: ipp at pwg.org> Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
>> In the matter of INDP and firewalls, INDP WILL go through a properly
> configured
> firewall. It won't go through one that blocks on whatever port we are
> assigned.
>> Let's be accurate.
>> **********************************************
> * Don Wright don at lexmark.com *
> * Chair, Printer Working Group *
> * Chair, IEEE MSC *
> * *
> * Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances *
> * Lexmark International *
> * 740 New Circle Rd *
> * Lexington, Ky 40550 *
> * 859-232-4808 (phone) 859-232-6740 (fax) *
> * (Former area code until 10/1 was 606) *
> **********************************************
>> kugler%us.ibm.com at interlock.lexmark.com on 06/21/2000 06:08:52 PM
>> To: ipp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com> cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
>> [Added subject line and this P.S.:]
>>henrik.holst at i... wrote:
> >
> > Well it was my understanding that we didn't agree on a mandatory method.
> > And the INDP method
> > won't go through a firewall, so if you are searching for a mandatory
> method
> > I would say MAILTO.
>> I agree, INDP won't go through firewalls.
>> ---------------------- Forwarded by Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM on 06/21/2000
> 04:07 PM ---------------------------
>> From: Carl Kugler on 06/21/2000 03:39 PM
>> To: ipp at pwg.org> cc:
> From: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS> Subject:
>> "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler at u...> wrote:
> ...
> > My preference is that INDP be mandated. I feel that programmatic
> > notification is critical to the development of robust IPP applications.
> One
> > of those applications would be QUALDOCS. In the definition of IPP, and
> its
> > associated notification mechanism, I am concerned primarily with client
> > /server communications. End user notification, while useful, is not my
> > primary objective. It is true that infrastructure will have to be
> > configured to allow this traffic to pass. The same is true of outbound
> IPP
> > requests. I imagine that most of our printers will also implement
> mailto.
> I
> > have no objections to allowing both, but I think only one should be
> > mandated.
> >
> ...
>> Actually, in many cases the infrastructure does not have to be configured
> to allow outbound IPP requests. I've always been able to connect to IPP
> Printers on the Internet with an IPP client here inside the IBM firewall.
> (In fact, I remember connecting my client to your Printer a few years
> ago!)
> We run a SOCKS Internet gateway here, and I can make a TCP connection to
> any host:port on the Internet.
>> "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at s...> wrote:
> ...
> > Lastly, Peter you jumped from port filtering by firewalls
> > to MIME type filtering - but the latter requires that the
> > firewall have an Application Layer Gateway (ALG) to figure
> > out the protocol and THEN to find the MIME type inside the
> > protocol envelope.
> >
> > Personally, I agree with Henrik about selecting email as
> > the IPP mandatory notification method.
> >
>> Most firewalls allow insiders to make outbound connections (perhaps
> indirectly), but prevent outsiders from making inbound connections. Very
> few corporate firewall administrators would be willing to simply open a
> port and allow anybody to make inbound connections to arbitrary addresses
> inside the firewall. Here at IBM, making an inbound connection requires
> full-blown authentication, encryption, one-time passwords, etc. (by
> strictly enforced corporate policy). We use Aventail for this. Also, in
> many cases, machines inside a firewall are simply not addressable from
> outside, due to network address translation (NAT), IP Masquerading,
> Windows
> connection sharing, etc. You'd need a really sophisticated
> application-level gateway to deal with these issues.
>> -Carl