IPP Mail Archive: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Not

IPP Mail Archive: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Not

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

From: Carl (carl@manros.com)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 16:46:50 EDT

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "IPP> I-D Guidelines for XML in IETF Protocols"

    Hi all,

    Well, April 15 has come and gone a while ago. I wanted to see if we got
    views from more people on my strawman proposal for a mandatory delivery
    method, but I guess that is not going to happen.

    There are two slight modifications that have been discussed on the DL.

    1) It seems unreasonable to demand a MUST for TLS in ipp-get considering
    that the main IPP specification in RFC2910-2911 has it as a strong SHOULD.
    We will try to get the IESG to accept the same level for the basic
    notification extensions and the ipp-get notification delivery method.

    2) We need to make the same security requirement statements for both the
    client and the server (printer) side, otherwise we cannot guarantee
    interoperability.

    With those modifications I declare that we have rough WG concensus on this
    topic and I have already instructed Tom Hastings to go ahead and modify the
    following two drafts:

            draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-08
            draft-ietf-ipp-notify-get-06

    When the new drafts are ready, I will send them out for another WG Last
    Call, to make sure that we are in sync about the final changes.

    As for the other two notification methods, there has also been some
    discussions on the DL, which are outside the scope of this particular
    concensus. I will address those discussions in a separate message.

    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: Carl [mailto:carl@manros.com]
    > Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 1:23 PM
    > To: ipp@pwg.org
    > Subject: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications
    >
    >
    > All,
    >
    > Ned Freed communicated in an earrlier message to the IPP WG, that
    > the IESG found it unacceptable that we had not choosen ONE
    > mandatory delivery method for notofications. 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 agfreement that they will
    > require all IPPFAX implementions to implement the 'ippget'
    > delivery method, and also rquire 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>
    >
    > 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 umplement these changes.
    >
    > I would like to get your reactions back on this proposal no later
    > than April 15, 2002.
    >
    > 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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 16:47:48 EDT