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: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Thu Jun 22 2000 - 17:21:11 EDT

  • Next message: kugler@us.ibm.com: "Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement"

    Hi,

    I agree with Harry. A long time ago we had a working
    concensus that in-band IPP notifications (part of the
    standard IPP protocol WITHOUT any reverse HTTP stuff)
    should be the mandatory method. I still think it's
    the best idea for interworking.

    If we picked two (and I think that's a bad idea with
    respect to IESG acceptance), then I think they should
    be in-band (like IPP 'Get-Notifications') and email.

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald

    -----Original Message-----
    From: harryl@us.ibm.com [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 1:33 PM
    To: don@lexmark.com
    Cc: kugler@us.ibm.com; ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: Re: IPP> TES: Mandatory IPP notification agreement

    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 - 17:29:05 EDT