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