IPP> Final Editing Steps for draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2

IPP> Final Editing Steps for draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2

IPP> Final Editing Steps for draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2

Michael Sweet mike at easysw.com
Sun Aug 1 10:16:34 EDT 2004


carl at manros.com wrote:
> Scott,
> 
> I don't see any harm in changing the text as you have suggested.
> 
> Objections from anybody else on the DL or we are done, not only with 
> this documents, but with all the original work items of the WG?

The only nit I have is that the wording seems to indicate that an
implementation that allows different security policies is no
longer conformant.

I propose changing the "require" to "support" in the following
sentence:

     Therefore, IPP Printer implementations MUST *support* both
     successful certificate-based TLS [RFC2246] client
     authentication and successful operator/administrator
     authorization (see [RFC2911] sections 5.2.7 and 8 and [RFC2910])
     to perform the administrative operations defined in this document.

I think this makes the intent clear: all IPP implementations must at
least support TLS+authentication if they provide admin operations,
but it does not rule out the use of alternate mechanisms which
provide equivalent security.

-- 
______________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products           mike at easysw dot com
Printing Software for UNIX                       http://www.easysw.com



More information about the Ipp mailing list