Carl-Uno, here are a couple of top-of-the-head ideas on
organizing the documents ...
If the encoding of operations is really to be transport independent,
why not include it in the model document? Then all of the transport
independent stuff is in one place.
I've often wondered if we could actually do the model document
in two distinct parts -- maybe two documents. One is the over-all
model definition and operations. The second part is the detailed
description of the attributes.
I think that the security document is informational only. I don't think
that there is any new standard definition being suggested in this
document. Any transport specific documents, such as IPP over
HTTP should include security mechanisms for that transport. For
HTTP, for example, we can describe very simply the use of SSL,
TSL, basic http authentication and digest authentication. Some
other transport may use a different set of security mechanisms.
Roger K deBry
Senior Techncial Staff Member
Architecture and Technology
IBM Printing Systems
email: rdebry at us.ibm.com
phone: 1-303-924-4080
---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 05/22/97 08:55
AM ---------------------------
ipp-owner @ pwg.org
05/21/97 04:28 PM
Please respond to ipp-owner at pwg.org @ internet
To: ipp @ pwg.org @ internet
cc: masinter @ parc.xerox.com @ internet, moore @ cs.utk.edu @ internet,
Harald.T.Alvestrand @ uninett.no @ internet
Subject: IPP> ADM - IPP Documents for the IETF
In our PWG IPP phone conference today we discussed how to organize our
various emerging IPP documents, based on the discussions held in the PWG
meeting in San Diego last week, which BTW resulted in a strong
recommendation to do our first transfer mapping to HTTP 1.1 (warts and all,
more about that later).
As we need to update our IETF charter text in the near future, I would like
to get the groups reaction on the following proposal for our series of IPP
documents to be produced.
We have a number of basic standards track documents that are less likely to
require change once they are agreed:
IPP Model and Semantics
IPP Security
IPP Directory Schema
IPP Encoding of Operations
All of the above documents should contain transport independent information.
We would then need a transfer specific IPP Profile document (on the
standards track), that would reference the 4 documents listed above:
Profile for running IPP over HTTP 1.1 (this would include some of HTTP
specific security protocol recommendations).
In addition, we have the two informational documents that are NOT on the
standards track:
Internet Printing Requirements
Mappings between IPP and RFC 1179
We probably do not need to reference these explicitly from the standards
track documents?
Can I get your reactions on whether these are the right documents to be
listed?
An alternative that has been discussed is to merge the IPP Encoding of
Operations with the Profile for running IPP over HTTP 1.1 document. Do we
gain a lot by keeping these as two separate documents?
Thanks,
Carl-Uno
Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros at cp10.es.xerox.com