> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ira McDonald [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 6:10 AM
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: IPP> SEC: IPP 1.1 security (phone conference)
> Hi John,
> The IESG has firmly rejected specifying security by alternate
> scheme names (e.g., 'https:'). The working agreement within
> the IPP WG is that the security is NOT discoverable by direct
> examination of the URI, but is found through a directory service
> (such as LDAP) or service location protocol (such as SLP)
> by examining the attribute 'uri-security-supported' which is
> an ordered attribute parallel to the 'printer-uri-supported'
> Several IETF-chartered working groups have already been shot
> down trying to use either 'xxxs:' scheme names or mandatory
> parameters appended to URI.
> Embedding security info in URI has gone completely out of
> favor with the IESG.
> Also IPP/1.1 systems MUST use 'ipp:' for their URI, per
> our Area Directors and other IESG members.
> The SLP 'printer:' template (and its future translation
> into an LDAP 'printer:' schema) already supports advertising
> these two IPP Printer object attributes and makes such
> advertisement MANDATORY.
> - Ira McDonald (outside consultant at Xerox)
> (editor of SLP 'printer:' template)