I'll make this change.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Sweet [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 10:17 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Scott Hollenbeck
> Subject: Re: IPP> Final Editing Steps for draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2
> email@example.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
> 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
> 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 - 10:46:49 EDT