IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining IPP draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR RESPONSES April 12, 2004

IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining IPP draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR RESPONSES April 12, 2004

IPP> IMPORTANT - Proposal to not progress the 4 remaining IPP draft documents and close down the IETF IPP WG - DEADLINE FOR RESPONSES April 12, 2004

Michael Sweet mike at easysw.com
Tue Mar 16 18:15:28 EST 2004


carl at manros.com wrote:
> Michael,
> 
> I am pleased to learn that a major IPP implementation will actually
> have the notification features in the not too distant future.
> 
> However, I have one question for you. As far as I remember the Area
> Director comments to our latest drafts was that he wanted to see
> firmed up or better text for the security sections. Have you taken
> those comments into consideration when planning your implementation?

The main issue seems to be to limit access for notifications for
resources owned by a particular user or group.  For CUPS, the
default configuration will allow only admin users to add notifications
for printer objects and job objects not belonging to a user.  The
admin will be able to setup a server that allows greater access,
e.g. to monitor another user's jobs, but that won't be the default.

As for spam issues, there really isn't much we can do aside from
using HTTP authentication and/or limiting access to "trusted"
addresses to reduce the risk.  Even if the spec didn't say the
address portion is opaque, what kind of filtering could actually
be done to provide effective spam protection?  Sure, you could
prevent emails to specific domains, but that doesn't prevent DoS
attacks to local domains.

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



More information about the Ipp mailing list