IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Final Editing Steps for draft-iet

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Final Editing Steps for draft-iet

Re: IPP> Final Editing Steps for draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2

From: Michael Sweet (mike@easysw.com)
Date: Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:16:34 EDT

  • Next message: Scott Hollenbeck: "RE: IPP> Final Editing Steps for draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2"

    carl@manros.com wrote:
    > Scott,
    >
    > 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
    longer conformant.

    I propose changing the "require" to "support" in the following
    sentence:

         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