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

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

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

Carl carl at manros.com
Mon Apr 1 13:27:05 EST 2002


Don,

OK I get it.

There is no intension to mandate all IPP implementatations to support
notifications, that is still an option in the overall IPP scheme.

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros
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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 10:21 AM
> To: Carl
> Cc: ipp at pwg.org
> Subject: RE: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications -
> Comments by April 15
>
>
>
>
> I just want to make sure what we do can't be twisted into a
> redefinition of the
> compliance criteria for a base IPP implementation.
>
> **********************************************
>  Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com
>
>  Member, IEEE SA Standards Board
>  Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
>  f.wright at ieee.org / f.wright at computer.org
>
>  Director, Alliances & Standards
>  Lexmark International
>  740 New Circle Rd
>  Lexington, Ky 40550
>  859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
> **********************************************
>
>
>
> "Carl" <carl%manros.com at interlock.lexmark.com> on 04/01/2002 01:07:36 PM
>
> To:   "Don_Wright/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK"@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com
> cc:   ipp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject:  RE: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for
> Notifications - Comments by
>       April 15
>
>
>
> Don,
>
> I am not sure how that differs from my proposal?
>
> If it is mandatory, it is mandatory, not conditionally.
> It would make no sense to have an implementation, which say supports
> subscriptions of notifications, without also offering at least one
> notification method, one of which has to be 'ippget'.
>
> Carl-Uno
>
> Carl-Uno Manros
> 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
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 9:51 AM
> > To: Carl
> > Cc: ipp at pwg.org
> > Subject: Re: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications -
> > Comments by April 15
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I would go along with making ippget CONDITIONALLY mandatory, i.e. if a
> > notification method is supported, at least IPPGET must be.
> >
> > **********************************************
> >  Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com
> >
> >  Member, IEEE SA Standards Board
> >  Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
> >  f.wright at ieee.org / f.wright at computer.org
> >
> >  Director, Alliances & Standards
> >  Lexmark International
> >  740 New Circle Rd
> >  Lexington, Ky 40550
> >  859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
> > **********************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > "Carl" <carl%manros.com at interlock.lexmark.com> on 03/30/2002 04:30:08 PM
> >
> > To:   "Carl" <carl%manros.com at interlock.lexmark.com>,
> >       ipp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com
> > cc:    (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> > 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