Hi,
+1 to Mike's comment. Make it declarative ("is") rather than normative.
If filtering wasn't performed, then this new operation would be useless.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Jan-April: 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
May-Dec: PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
> Smith,
>> I don't see how we can validate conformance for this MUST, particularly
> when the default (open) policy will return the same attributes and values
> as Get-Printer-Attributes. I suggest we simply declare the intended
> behavior:
>> "... the response is filtered based on the most authenticated user."
>>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 11:56 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <
>smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
>> Ah, good catch. I suggest we replace "can" with "shall" in that first
> paragraph:
>> *4 Get-User-Printer-Attributes Operation*
> The Get-User-Printer-Attributes operation is semantically analogous to the
> Get-Printer-Attributes operation [RFC8011] but the response MUST be
> filtered based on the most authenticated user. The authenticated user (see
> section 9.3 of [RFC8011]) performing this operation MUST be either a User
> permitted to create Print Jobs or an Operator or Administrator of the
> Printer. Otherwise, the Printer MUST reject the operation and return
> 'client-error-forbidden', 'client-error-not-authenticated', or
> 'client-error-not-authorized' as appropriate.
>> The Client MUST be prepared to handle an HTTP authentication challenge in
> response to a Get-User-Printer-Attributes operation request. If the Client
> initiates the Get-User-Printer-Attributes operation over a non-TLS
> connection, the Client MUST be prepared to receive an HTTP 426 response to
> upgrade the connection to TLS [RFC2817]. See [RFC8010] and [RFC8011] for
> authentication methods that require a secure channel.
>> A Printer MUST support all the same operation attributes for a
> Get-User-Printer-Attributes operation that it supports with a
> Get-Printer-Attributes operation, including those a Client can use to
> request a filtered response: “document-format” [RFC8011]; “first-index”
> [PWG5100.13]; “limit” [PWG5100.13]; and any of the attributes named by
> “printer-get-attributes-supported” [PWG5100.13].
>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:16 PM, wamwagner at comcast.net wrote:
>> Looks good…except I am trying to remember why we weasleword and say that
> the response “can” be filtered, whereas we use standard compliance terms
> elsewhere. I vaguely recall this being discussed, but the implication is
> that a printer could respond without filtering. If that were the intent, I
> expect that we would use ‘MAY’.
> Thanks, Bill Wagner
>> *From: *Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <smith.kennedy at hp.com>
> *Sent: *Monday, November 6, 2017 6:26 PM
> *To: *Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com>
> *Cc: *William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>; PWG IPP WG Reflector
> <ipp at pwg.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [IPP] Updated stable draft of IPP Get-User-Printer-Attributesisnow
> available for review
>> How about this for an update to section 4:
>>> *4 Get-User-Printer-Attributes Operation*
> The Get-User-Printer-Attributes operation is semantically analogous to the
> Get-Printer-Attributes operation [RFC8011] but the response can be filtered
> based on the most authenticated user. The authenticated user (see section
> 9.3 of [RFC8011]) performing this operation MUST be either a User permitted
> to create Print Jobs or an Operator or Administrator of the Printer.
> Otherwise, the Printer MUST reject the operation and return
> 'client-error-forbidden', 'client-error-not-authenticated', or
> 'client-error-not-authorized' as appropriate.
>> The Client MUST be prepared to handle an HTTP authentication challenge in
> response to a Get-User-Printer-Attributes operation request. If the Client
> initiates the Get-User-Printer-Attributes operation over a non-TLS
> connection, the Client MUST be prepared to receive an HTTP 426 response to
> upgrade the connection to TLS [RFC2817]. See [RFC8010] and [RFC8011] for
> authentication methods that require a secure channel.
>> A Printer MUST support all the same operation attributes for a
> Get-User-Printer-Attributes operation that it supports with a
> Get-Printer-Attributes operation, including those used by a Client to
> request a filtered response: “document-format” [RFC8011]; “first-index”
> [PWG5100.13]; “limit” [PWG5100.13]; and any of the attributes named by
> “printer-get-attributes-supported” [PWG5100.13].
>>>>> Smith
>>>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>> Smith/Bill,
>> Perhaps we can use something in section 4 like the following:
>>> Access Rights: The authenticated user (see section 9.3 of [RFC8011])
> performing this operation must be either a User permitted to create Print
> Jobs or an Operator or Administrator of the Printer. Otherwise, the
> Printer MUST reject the operation and return 'client-error-forbidden',
> 'client-error-not-authenticated', or 'client-error-not-authorized' as
> appropriate.
>>> That mirrors the wording from other operations defined in RFC 8011 and
> other places and makes it clear that the operation is provided for Users
> that want to print.
>> Thoughts?
>> (As for the format debate, I always have used the PDF versions for review
> because Word does not preserve the layout of text - local fonts and margins
> for your last used printer will mess things up every time...)
>>>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:08 PM, wamwagner at comcast.net wrote:
>> Hi Smith,
> A few comments:
>> 1. Although the standard compliance terms are used, (MUST, SHOULD,
> etc.) Section 2 does not include the standard reference defining these
> terms.
> 2. Section 4 line 150 (in the non-redline pdf): “… Attributes
> operation [RFC8011] but can be authenticated …” suggests that the operation
> is authenticated, which I don’t think is a typical way of indicating that
> the operation may prompt a sequence to authenticate the user. Prehaps
> rewording to “ … Attributes operation [RFC8011] except that the response
> can be filtered based on the most authenticated user and to effect this,
> the operation can prompt a sequence to authenticate the user.” Or something
> like that.
>>> On a more general topic, for whatever reason, the PWG has typically
> provided drafts in MS Word and PDF formats. The ‘odt’ format is not
> compatible with , at least, my version of MS Word to the extent that
> opening it in MS Word produces a incorrectly displayed document subject to
> extensive editorial comments. The Process states “ Internal working
> versions of PWG documents should be available in an agreed upon, widely
> available word processing format, to provide for collaboration between
> document editors and contributors. For example, Microsoft WORD and HTML are
> common
> revisable formats in use, today. “ For those not familiar with your use of
> Open Office, perhaps it would be better to include a note in your draft
> announcements that the .odt extension files should be viewed with Apache
> Open Office, not MS Word.
>> Thanks, Bill Wagner
>>>> *From: *Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <smith.kennedy at hp.com>
> *Sent: *Saturday, November 4, 2017 12:44 AM
> *To: *PWG IPP WG Reflector <ipp at pwg.org>
> *Subject: *[IPP] Updated stable draft of IPP Get-User-Printer-Attributes
> isnow available for review
>> Greetings,
>> An updated stable draft of IPP Get-User-Printer-Attributes is now
> available for review:
>>https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippgupa-20171103.pdf>https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippgupa-20171103.odt>https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippgupa-20171103-rev.pdf>https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippgupa-20171103-rev.odt>> Changes are minor:
> * Fixed a broken bookmark cross reference in section 3.1
> * Fixed a few instances of passive voice
> * Some other editorial fixes
>> Cheers,
> Smith
>> /**
> Smith Kennedy
> Wireless & Standards Architect - IPG-PPS
> Standards - IEEE ISTO PWG / Bluetooth SIG / Wi-Fi Alliance / NFC
> Forum / USB-IF
> Chair, IEEE ISTO Printer Working Group
> HP Inc.
> */
>>>>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer
>>>> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer
>>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20171107/841c477f/attachment.html>