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

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

RE: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications - Comments by April 15

From: Carl (carl@manros.com)
Date: Tue Apr 09 2002 - 22:48:17 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Sweet: "Re: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications - Comments by April 15"

    Tom,

    Your reply deviated on one point from my straw man proposal. The IESG would
    like to see security mandated. In the case of 'ippget' that means MANDATORY
    support for TLS (although it is RECOMMENDED in RFC 2910.

    Are you prepared to go along with that (which I understand is already the
    case for IPPFAX)?

    Carl-Uno

    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: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Hastings,
    > Tom N
    > Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 6:32 PM
    > To: Carl
    > Cc: ipp@pwg.org
    > Subject: RE: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications -
    > Comments by April 15
    >
    >
    > Carl-Uno,
    >
    > I support the proposal to REQUIRE a Notification Delivery Method so that
    > interoperability between a conforming client and a conforming Printer is
    > enhanced for Notifications.
    >
    > I also support the proposal to make IPPGET be that REQUIRED
    > Delivery Method
    > by changing the IPP Notifications and Subscriptions document (which is an
    > OPTIONAL IPP extension document) in the following ways:
    >
    > 1. REQUIRE that a Printer support the IPPGET Delivery Method, if
    > the Printer
    > supports IPP Notifications.
    >
    > 2. REQUIRE that a client support the IPPGET Delivery Method, if
    > it supports
    > IPP Notifications.
    >
    > 3. RFC 2910 already RECOMMENDs that a Printer support TLS, so saying the
    > same thing in the Notifications and Subscriptions document would be
    > redundant, but we could still do that.
    >
    > Compared to our other two Delivery Methods (MAILTO and INDP), the IPPGET
    > Delivery Method has the following advantages:
    >
    > a. it is the easiest Delivery Method to support
    > b. it is in-band so it doesn't create any additional firewall problems
    > c. it is also useful for LAN job submission (with no firewall)
    > d. it doesn't create any more administrative problems
    > e. it is REQUIRED for IPPFAX conformance.
    > f. and doesn't have any SPAM problems (since the job submitter is polling
    > and/or keeping a channel open for notification events).
    >
    >
    > The IPPGET spec also should be changed:
    >
    > 4. We should also change the IPPGET spec itself from its current
    > "RECOMMENDED" to "REQUIRED" as a Delivery Method for an IPP Printer to
    > support.
    >
    > Tom
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Carl [mailto:carl@manros.com]
    > Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 13:30
    > To: Carl; ipp@pwg.org
    > Subject: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications - Comments
    > by April 15
    >
    >
    > Resend, with spelling corrected etc. The earlier message slipped
    > away before
    > I had finished it.
    >
    > All,
    >
    > Ned Freed communicated in an earlier message to the IPP WG, that the IESG
    > found it unacceptable that we had not choosen ONE mandatory
    > delivery method
    > for notifications. They would also like to see that delivery
    > method mandate
    > the use of security.
    >
    > As those of you who were around about two years ago remember, we could not
    > reach agreement about mandating any of the delivery methods.
    >
    > However, in the meantime the members of the IPPFAX project in the Printer
    > Working Group has reached an agreement that they will require all IPPFAX
    > implementions to implement the 'ippget' delivery method, and it also
    > requires support for TLS security.
    >
    > Hence, I would like to put up the following strawman proposal to
    > the IPP WG
    > members to satisfy the IESG comments:
    >
    > 1) Change the main Notifiction document to require that 'ippget' delivery
    > MUST be included for all notification implementations, but any of
    > the other
    > two methods can also be implemented as an option.
    > <draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-08.txt>
    >
    > 2) Put that rule also into the three delivery method documents, so it is
    > crystal clear what the rule is.
    > <draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-06.txt>
    > <draft-ietf-ipp-notify-mailto-04.txt>
    > <draft-ietf-ipp-indp-method-06.txt>
    >
    > 3) Further, in the 'ippget' delivery document, we specify that
    > TLS security
    > MUST be supported.
    > <draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-06.txt>
    >
    > If we can reach agreement on this, I will instruct the IPP editor to
    > implement these changes.
    >
    > I would like to get your reactions back on this proposal no later
    > than April
    > 15, 2002.
    >
    > Carl-Uno Manros
    > Chair of IETF IPP WG
    >
    > 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
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 22:49:20 EDT