Randy,
The main issue is link local, but when you start getting a mix of traditional and multicast host names being used (common for today's network printers) with a new reliance on the information supplied by the printer, it is really important that the client be able to use it... If the printer reports a .local name the the resource won't be accessible from outside the subnet. Similarly, if you get foo.example.com a client might not be able to resolve that if it doesn't have a proper dns server configured...
Sent from my iPad
On May 10, 2012, at 8:48 PM, Randy Turner <rturner at amalfisystems.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>> Can you just simplify 1-3 below by saying implementations MUST NOT use literal link-local addresses in URI values?
>> Everything else is ok, right?
>> Randy
>>> On May 10, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Michael Sweet wrote:
>>> All,
>>>> Another issue that has come to light recently is the use of link-local addresses by printers that haven't gotten an IP address from a DHCP server.
>>>> To summarize the issue: RFC 3986 does not address how to represent link-local addresses in URIs. Two separate (and incompatible) methods have been proposed for IPv6 addresses:
>>>>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-fenner-literal-zone-02.txt (expired)
>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-6man-uri-zoneid-01>>>> However, even if one of these methods is eventually adopted it is still impossible for a Printer to advertise the correct URI with a link-local address because zoneid strings are system-specific - they are basically the name of the network interface on the client.
>>>> What I'd like to do in IPP Everywhere is:
>>>> 1. Add rationale of not using link-local numeric addresses in printer-uri-supported and other URI values: Link-local numeric addresses cannot be represented by the Printer because the zone identifier is specific to the Client and not the Printer.
>>>> 2. Add normative requirement: Printers MUST NOT transfer/provide URI values using link-local addresses, SHOULD transfer/provide URIs values using the Host supplied in the Client HTTP request, SHOULD transfer/provide URI values using fully qualified domain names (FQDNs) in preference to numeric addresses, and SHOULD NOT transfer/provide URI values using numeric addresses obtained via DHCP or other auto-configuration protocols. Printers MAY advertise multiple printer-uri-supported values to cover all of the configured FQDNs and non-link-local numeric addresses.
>>>> 3. Add implementation discussion where the printer can tailor the addresses reported to the Host: value supplied in the client HTTP request; printer-icons, printer-supply-info-uri, printer-more-info are not as flexible as printer-uri-supported, so using the value supplied in the Host HTTP request header is important.
>>>> 4. Add security considerations text talking about DNS rebinding attacks - Printers SHOULD NOT allow requests with unknown or invalid Host values, including "localhost".
>>>> 5. Add security considerations text referencing security consideration in current mDNS draft.
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> __________________________________________________
>> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>>>>>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>> _______________________________________________
>> ipp mailing list
>>ipp at pwg.org>>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20120510/1b87680d/attachment-0001.html>