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 at manros.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl [mailto:carl at manros.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 1:23 PM
> To: ipp at 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 at manros.com