IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification a

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification a

Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

From: Jay Martin (jkm@underscore.com)
Date: Thu Jun 22 2000 - 16:48:15 EDT

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "RE: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement"

    Exactly what do you mean when you say NATIVE?

            ...jay

    harryl@us.ibm.com wrote:
    >
    > I think a NATIVE notification protocol would have been a good goal.
    >
    > Harry Lewis
    > IBM Printing Systems
    >
    > don@lexmark.com
    > Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    > 06/22/2000 02:16 PM
    >
    > To: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
    > cc: ipp@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@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@interlock.lexmark.com on 06/22/2000 04:13:36 PM
    >
    > To: Don_Wright/Lex/Lexmark@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@lexmark.com on 06/22/2000 01:40:16 PM
    >
    > To: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
    > cc:
    > Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement
    >
    > Firewalls are configurable.
    >
    > Don
    >
    > kugler%us.ibm.com@interlock.lexmark.com on 06/22/2000 03:33:16 PM
    >
    > To: Don_Wright/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK
    > cc: ipp%pwg.org@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@lexmark.com on 06/22/2000 12:04:27 PM
    >
    > To: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
    > cc: ipp@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@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@interlock.lexmark.com on 06/21/2000 06:08:52 PM
    >
    > To: ipp%pwg.org@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@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@pwg.org
    > cc:
    > From: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
    > Subject:
    >
    > "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler@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@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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 22 2000 - 16:57:04 EDT