IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications - Commen ts by April 15

IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications - Commen ts by April 15

IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications - Commen ts by April 15

Hastings, Tom N hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Tue Apr 9 21:32:24 EDT 2002


Carl-Uno,

I support the proposal to REQUIRE a Notification Delivery Method so that
interoperability between a conforming client and a conforming Printer is
enhanced for Notifications.

I also support the proposal to make IPPGET be that REQUIRED Delivery Method
by changing the IPP Notifications and Subscriptions document (which is an
OPTIONAL IPP extension document) in the following ways:

1. REQUIRE that a Printer support the IPPGET Delivery Method, if the Printer
supports IPP Notifications.

2. REQUIRE that a client support the IPPGET Delivery Method, if it supports
IPP Notifications.

3. RFC 2910 already RECOMMENDs that a Printer support TLS, so saying the
same thing in the Notifications and Subscriptions document would be
redundant, but we could still do that. 

Compared to our other two Delivery Methods (MAILTO and INDP), the IPPGET
Delivery Method has the following advantages:

a. it is the easiest Delivery Method to support
b. it is in-band so it doesn't create any additional firewall problems
c. it is also useful for LAN job submission (with no firewall)
d. it doesn't create any more administrative problems
e. it is REQUIRED for IPPFAX conformance.
f. and doesn't have any SPAM problems (since the job submitter is polling
and/or keeping a channel open for notification events).


The IPPGET spec also should be changed:

4. We should also change the IPPGET spec itself from its current
"RECOMMENDED" to "REQUIRED" as a Delivery Method for an IPP Printer to
support.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl [mailto:carl at manros.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 13:30
To: Carl; ipp at pwg.org
Subject: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications - Comments
by April 15


Resend, with spelling corrected etc. The earlier message slipped away before
I had finished it.

All,

Ned Freed communicated in an earlier message to the IPP WG, that the IESG
found it unacceptable that we had not choosen ONE mandatory delivery method
for notifications. They would also like to see that delivery method mandate
the use of security.

As those of you who were around about two years ago remember, we could not
reach agreement about mandating any of the delivery methods.

However, in the meantime the members of the IPPFAX project in the Printer
Working Group has reached an agreement that they will require all IPPFAX
implementions to implement the 'ippget' delivery method, and it also
requires support for TLS security.

Hence, I would like to put up the following strawman proposal to the IPP WG
members to satisfy the IESG comments:

1) Change the main Notifiction document to require that 'ippget' delivery
MUST be included for all notification implementations, but any of the other
two methods can also be implemented as an option.
<draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-08.txt>

2) Put that rule also into the three delivery method documents, so it is
crystal clear what the rule is.
<draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-06.txt>
<draft-ietf-ipp-notify-mailto-04.txt>
<draft-ietf-ipp-indp-method-06.txt>

3) Further, in the 'ippget' delivery document, we specify that TLS security
MUST be supported.
<draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-06.txt>

If we can reach agreement on this, I will instruct the IPP editor to
implement these changes.

I would like to get your reactions back on this proposal no later than April
15, 2002.

Carl-Uno Manros
Chair of IETF IPP WG

10701 S Eastern Ave #1117
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Tel +1-702-617-9414
Fax +1-702-617-9417
Mob +1-310-251-7103
Email carl at manros.com





More information about the Ipp mailing list