> I don't see any harm in changing the text as you have suggested.
> Objections from anybody else on the DL or we are done, not only with
> this documents, but with all the original work items of the WG?
The only nit I have is that the wording seems to indicate that an
implementation that allows different security policies is no
I propose changing the "require" to "support" in the following
Therefore, IPP Printer implementations MUST *support* both
successful certificate-based TLS [RFC2246] client
authentication and successful operator/administrator
authorization (see [RFC2911] sections 5.2.7 and 8 and [RFC2910])
to perform the administrative operations defined in this document.
I think this makes the intent clear: all IPP implementations must at
least support TLS+authentication if they provide admin operations,
but it does not rule out the use of alternate mechanisms which
provide equivalent security.
-- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike at easysw dot com Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:17:19 EDT