IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

Jay Martin jkm at underscore.com
Thu Jun 22 16:48:15 EDT 2000


Exactly what do you mean when you say NATIVE?

	...jay


harryl at us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> I think a NATIVE notification protocol would have been a good goal.
> 
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
> 
> don at lexmark.com
> Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org
> 06/22/2000 02:16 PM
> 
>         To:     Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS
>         cc:     ipp at pwg.org
>         Subject:        Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
> 
> Just because there are cases where a machine can't get notifications does
> not
> mean we should not standardize it.  By making it mandatory, developers of
> products must support it.  It doesn't mean that everyone must use it.
> (BTW:  I
> am also in favor of making e-mail mandatory).
> 
> **********************************************
> * Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com *
> * Chair, Printer Working Group               *
> * Chair, IEEE MSC                            *
> *                                            *
> * Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances  *
> * Lexmark International                      *
> * 740 New Circle Rd                          *
> * Lexington, Ky 40550                        *
> * 859-232-4808 (phone) 859-232-6740 (fax)    *
> * (Former area code until 10/1 was 606)      *
> **********************************************
> 
> kugler%us.ibm.com at interlock.lexmark.com on 06/22/2000 04:13:36 PM
> 
> To:   Don_Wright/Lex/Lexmark at LEXMARK
> cc:    (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject:  Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
> 
> Many firewalls allow you to connect many more machines to the Internet
> than
> you have IP addresses for.  The addresses behind the firewall may be
> private, unregistered addresses,  not globally routable, not globally
> unique.
> 
>      -Carl
> 
> don at lexmark.com on 06/22/2000 01:40:16 PM
> 
> To:   Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS
> cc:
> Subject:  Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
> 
> Firewalls are configurable.
> 
> Don
> 
> kugler%us.ibm.com at interlock.lexmark.com on 06/22/2000 03:33:16 PM
> 
> To:   Don_Wright/Lex/Lexmark at LEXMARK
> cc:   ipp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject:  Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
> 
> Will go through OUTBOUND from a Printer INSIDE to a client OUTSIDE.  But
> what if the CLIENT is behind a firewall?
> 
>      -Carl
> 
> don at lexmark.com on 06/22/2000 12:04:27 PM
> 
> To:   Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS
> cc:   ipp at pwg.org
> Subject:  Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
> 
> In the matter of INDP and firewalls, INDP WILL go through a properly
> configured
> firewall.  It won't go through one that blocks on whatever port we are
> assigned.
> 
> Let's be accurate.
> 
> **********************************************
> * Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com *
> * Chair, Printer Working Group               *
> * Chair, IEEE MSC                            *
> *                                            *
> * Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances  *
> * Lexmark International                      *
> * 740 New Circle Rd                          *
> * Lexington, Ky 40550                        *
> * 859-232-4808 (phone) 859-232-6740 (fax)    *
> * (Former area code until 10/1 was 606)      *
> **********************************************
> 
> kugler%us.ibm.com at interlock.lexmark.com on 06/21/2000 06:08:52 PM
> 
> To:   ipp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com
> cc:    (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject:  Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
> 
> [Added subject line and this P.S.:]
> 
> henrik.holst at i... wrote:
> >
> > Well it was my understanding that we didn't agree on a mandatory method.
> > And the INDP method
> > won't go through a firewall, so if you are searching for a mandatory
> method
> > I would say MAILTO.
> 
> I agree, INDP won't go through firewalls.
> 
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM on 06/21/2000
> 04:07 PM ---------------------------
> 
> From: Carl Kugler on 06/21/2000 03:39 PM
> 
> To:   ipp at pwg.org
> cc:
> From: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS
> Subject:
> 
> "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler at u...> wrote:
> ...
> > My preference is that INDP be mandated.  I feel that programmatic
> > notification is critical to the development of robust IPP applications.
> One
> > of those applications would be QUALDOCS.  In the definition of IPP, and
> its
> > associated notification mechanism, I am concerned primarily with client
> > /server communications.  End user notification, while useful, is not my
> > primary objective.  It is true that infrastructure will have to be
> > configured to allow this traffic to pass.  The same is true of outbound
> IPP
> > requests. I imagine that most of our printers will also implement
> mailto.
> I
> > have no objections to allowing both, but I think only one should be
> > mandated.
> >
> ...
> 
> Actually, in many cases the infrastructure does not have to be configured
> to allow outbound IPP requests.  I've always been able to connect to IPP
> Printers on the Internet with an IPP client here inside the IBM firewall.
> (In fact, I remember connecting my client to your Printer a few years
> ago!)
> We run a SOCKS Internet gateway here, and I can make a TCP connection to
> any host:port on the Internet.
> 
> "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at s...> wrote:
> ...
> > Lastly, Peter you jumped from port filtering by firewalls
> > to MIME type filtering - but the latter requires that the
> > firewall have an Application Layer Gateway (ALG) to figure
> > out the protocol and THEN to find the MIME type inside the
> > protocol envelope.
> >
> > Personally, I agree with Henrik about selecting email as
> > the IPP mandatory notification method.
> >
> 
> Most firewalls allow insiders to make outbound connections (perhaps
> indirectly), but prevent outsiders from making inbound connections.  Very
> few corporate firewall administrators would be willing to simply open a
> port and allow anybody to make inbound connections to arbitrary addresses
> inside the firewall.  Here at IBM, making an inbound connection requires
> full-blown authentication, encryption, one-time passwords, etc. (by
> strictly enforced corporate policy).   We use Aventail for this.  Also, in
> many cases, machines inside a firewall are simply not addressable from
> outside, due to network address translation (NAT), IP Masquerading,
> Windows
> connection sharing, etc.  You'd need a really sophisticated
> application-level gateway to deal with these issues.
> 
>      -Carl



More information about the Ipp mailing list