IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for

Re: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications - Commen ts by April 15

From: Michael Sweet (mike@easysw.com)
Date: Mon Apr 01 2002 - 13:27:49 EST

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "IPP> RFC 3251 - Electicity over IP"

    McDonald, Ira wrote:
    > ...
    > Except that most MUA's don't support S/MIME... :(
    >
    > <ira>
    > Good point - could we say SHOULD support use of S/MIME (RFC 2633) and/or
    > MIME with OpenPGP (RFC 3165) or SMTP over TLS (RFC 3207), all of which
    > are IETF 'standards track'?
    > </ira>

    I'd say that that would be the best route, although the IETF might want
    us to narrow the focus to one method?

    > ...
    > For INDP, TLS may improve security, however the current spec doesn't
    > require authentication at all for incoming IPP operations, so
    > encrypting the channel doesn't make INDP more secure by itself.
    >
    > <ira>
    > For INDP, we could say that the job submission (in IPP) SHOULD use
    > TLS security and the INDP delivery SHOULD use TLS, right?
    > </ira>
    >

    Right. 

    -- 
______________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products                  mike@easysw.com
Printing Software for UNIX                       http://www.easysw.com

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 01 2002 - 13:28:24 EST