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

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

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

From: Carl (carl@manros.com)
Date: Tue Apr 09 2002 - 22:41:28 EDT

  • Next message: Carl: "IPP> FW: Did you comment on IPP URL Scheme?"

    and yet another one

    Carl-Uno Manros
    10701 S Eastern Ave #1117
    Henderson, NV 89052, USA
    Tel +1-702-617-9414
    Fax +1-702-617-9417
    Mob +1-310-251-7103
    Email carl@manros.com

    -----Original Message-----
    From: ned.freed@mrochek.com [mailto:ned.freed@mrochek.com]
    Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 1:43 PM
    To: Michael Sweet
    Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com; McDonald, Ira; 'Carl'; ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: Re: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications -
    Commen ts by April 15

    > ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:
    > > ...
    > > And authentication in email is done with SASL. S/MIME and PGP don't even
    enter
    > > into it, and TLS doesn't have to. I would therefore suggest making SASL
    > > a MUST with DIGEST-MD5 the mandatory to implement mechanism. You'll need
    > > to be able to configure the printer to support the necessary
    credentials.
    > > ...

    > Except that a lot of companies *don't* (and sometimes can't) use SASL
    > with their mail servers, and SASL only works with SMTP (email often
    > goes through a number of other transports, e.g. local delivery...)

    First of all, you are confusing mandatory to implement with mandatory to
    use.
    We are only concerned with the former, not the latter.

    Second, the direction things have been going has been to use SMTP as an
    intermediary even for posting messages locally. (Delivery isn't relevant to
    the
    problem at hand.) And while I can see a desire to be able to implement IPP
    as a
    queuing service, even in this context an implementation would be well
    advised
    to have both SMTP and SASL capabilities available.

    Third, even if you are justified in considering an implementation that
    only implements local posting without SMTP as legitimate, it really
    doesn't fall within the IETF's purview to standardize such things.

                                    Ned



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 22:43:18 EDT