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 - Commen ts by April 15

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Thu Apr 11 2002 - 17:03:34 EDT

  • Next message: Carl: "FW: IPP> FW: IESG/AD reviews of IPP notifications documents"

    I support mandating IPPGET for IPP notification but I believe the mandate
    should apply to the printer not the client.

    Architecturally, mandating support (for IPPGET) at the printer is
    sufficient to support complete interoperability. It is overkill to mandate
    both ends. For IPPFAX (a specific application of IPP) I agree we want to
    lock down the specification for every node.

    Are you are saying that someone can build a client with (ex.) mailto
    notification support (only)... but they just can't claim it is an IPP
    client that supports notification? If someone chooses to do this, of
    course they run the risk of reduced interoperability. That is a conscious
    choice. The architecture and specifications still fully support complete
    interoperability.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems
    ----------------------------------------------

    "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    04/10/2002 06:08 PM

     
            To: Dennis Carney/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
            cc: ipp@pwg.org
            Subject: RE: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications - Commen ts
    by April 15

     

    Dennis,

    Yes, I was adding to Carl-Uno's proposal, because in order to get
    interoperability between a client and a Printer you need to have
    conformance
    requirements for both the client and Printer, not just the Printer. The
    reason we left out client conformance in the Notification spec was because
    we didn't have any Delivery Method REQUIRED for the Printer, if
    Notifications were supported. But now the proposal is for the
    Notification
    spec to REQUIRE the Printer to support (implement) the IPPGET Delivery
    Method, if the Printer supports Notification.

    However, I don't think that there is the problem that you think for adding
    this client requirement. My entire statement was:

    2. REQUIRE that a client support the IPPGET Delivery Method, if it
    supports
    IPP Notifications.

    The "if ..." doesn't require clients to support (implement) Notifications.
    But if a client does support (implement) IPP Notifications, then it MUST
    support (implement) IPPGET Delivery Method and MAY support (implement)
    others. Then such a conforming client can interoperate with a conforming
    Printer, including Notifications. None of these statement require the
    client to actually *use* Notifications, if the user doesn't want to.

    OK?

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Dennis Carney [mailto:dcarney@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 08:54
    To: ipp@pwg.org
    Cc: Hastings, Tom N
    Subject: RE: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications -
    Commen ts by April 15

    Tom,

    I see a way in which your comments added a new wrinkle, although I may be
    mistaken. I didn't get the impression in the previous messages that we
    were discussing mandating that a *client* support IPPGET if it supports
    any
    notification mechanisms--I read Carl's "notification implementations" as
    discussing IPP servers only.

    What does it mean that a client "support" a mandatory notification
    mechanism? If the client has no interest in actually using that
    mechanism,
    it doesn't make sense to force the client to implement it anyway, then
    just
    not use it. Am I missing something?

    Dennis Carney
    IBM Printing Systems

     

                          "Hastings, Tom N"

                          <hastings@cp10.es To: Carl
    <carl@manros.com>

                          .xerox.com> cc: ipp@pwg.org

                          Sent by: Subject: RE: IPP> RE:
    Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications - Commen ts by April 15
                          owner-ipp@pwg.org

     

     

                          04/09/02 07:32 PM

     

     

    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 : Thu Apr 11 2002 - 17:07:00 EDT