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 13:07:36 EST 2002


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