IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Re: PRO - Issue 32: Use of Basic & Digest Authentication

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Re: PRO - Issue 32: Use of Basic & Digest Authentication

RE: IPP> Re: PRO - Issue 32: Use of Basic & Digest Authentication

Paul Moore (paulmo@microsoft.com)
Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:15:15 -0700

"I know that Paul and others are fully capable of doing that if you want
to."

I (MS) already do it, I have no issue with doing it at all and never have. I
intend to ship strong security. MS is 100% committed to security for our
customers. I have already demonstrated it in beta products (that I know you
have access to and that most of the active WG members also have access to)

-----Original Message-----
From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 6:03 PM
To: Keith Moore; SHIVAUN_ALBRIGHT@HP-Roseville-om2.om.hp.com
Cc: don@lexmark.com; ipp@pwg.org; Paul Moore
Subject: RE: IPP> Re: PRO - Issue 32: Use of Basic & Digest
Authentication

All,

I fully agree with Keith. I have said it before, and I repeat it again, it
is now time for the members of the IPP WG to start behaving like an IETF WG.

Don't waste more of our time on non-Internet scenarios.

Let us focus on how to PROVIDE the required security features rather than
fighting them!
I know that Paul and others are fully capable of doing that if you want to.

Carl-Uno

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 4:56 PM
> To: SHIVAUN_ALBRIGHT@HP-Roseville-om2.om.hp.com
> Cc: don@lexmark.com; moore@cs.utk.edu; ipp@pwg.org;
> paulmo@microsoft.com
> Subject: Re: IPP> Re: PRO - Issue 32: Use of Basic & Digest
> Authentication
>
>
> > I agree with Don. Mandating that all printers have
> security in order to be
> > IPP/1.1 compliant is forcing a requirement on printers that
> may not be
> > warranted for their market segments. Certain market
> segments may not want or
> > need security on their Printers and forcing this on the
> device manufacturer
> > to claim compliancy is unacceptable.
>
> you guys are wasting your time and mine. this issue is not
> even on the table.
>
> if you want an IETF standard, you've got to have strong
> authentication.
> period, full stop, end of discussion.
>
> Keith
>