The important issue is that "printer-map-uri" probably isn't right,
but I'm not sure what is. We could switch around the acronym
to "pma" ("privacy and mutual authentication") to give us
"printer-pma-uri".
But the issue I started to raise in the previous email is what
a single dedicated port would look like. Would we still have
the "http" and "https" schemes on a single port, or would we
go to an "ipp" scheme with some other mechanism to determine whether
the TLS is being used. This has implications for when the
alternative printer-uri is used.
Perhaps another name is "printer-alt-uri" or "printer-alternate-uri".
Bob
> From don@lexmark.com Wed Dec 17 10:18:16 1997
> From: don@lexmark.com
> X-Lotus-Fromdomain: LEXMARK@LEXMTA
> To: hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com
> Cc: Ipp@pwg.org
> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:55:37 -0500
> Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - URGENT: Ok to call 2nd printer uri: "printer-map
> -uri"?
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Sender: ipp-owner@pwg.org
> X-Lines: 58
>
>
> If I were to see "printer-map-uri" I would assume I could point my browser
> at thar uri and see were the printer is located on a MAP!!
>
> What about being real straight-forward and calling it one of the following:
>
> TLS-Printer-uri
> Printer-TLS-uri
>
> Actually, secure-printer-uri is exactly what is says it is and printer-uri
> says
> nothing about security. I'm not opposed to calling it what it is and
> living with
> the implications of that.
>
> Don
>
>
> **********************************************
> * Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
> * Product Manager, Strategic Alliances *
> * Lexmark International *
> * 740 New Circle Rd *
> * Lexington, Ky 40550 *
> * 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
> **********************************************
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> To: ipp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com
> cc: SISAACSON%novell.com@interlock.lexmark.com,
> szilles%Adobe.COM@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: Don Wright)
> bcc: Don Wright
> Subject: IPP> MOD - URGENT: Ok to call 2nd printer uri: "printer-map-uri"?
>
>
>
>
> In Washington and before, there has been discussion that calling
> the second uri, "printer-secure-uri" makes it sound like the first
> "printer-uri" is not secure. So we've been searching for a better
> term.
> Scott and Steve came up with the term (drum roll):
> "Mutual Authentication and Privacy (MAP).
> So ok to call the second uri Printer attribute: "printer-map-uri"?
> It will be put right after the first uri: "printer-uri" secion
> 4.4.2 in the Model document.
> SEND COMMENTS TO DL, SO WE CAN FORWARD THE INTERNET-DRAFT THIS WEEK
> TO THE IESG.
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>