Do you envision conference calls (to help sort out our few
remaining issues and any edits that should have made it into
the most recent Model and Protocol specs but didn't, for
example the range of request-ID being '1..n' and not '0..n')?
The note you forwarded with minutes from the most recent TLS
WG meeting were interesting. Right at the end, there is a
discussion that if TLS negotiation FAILS, then the new TLS
spec does NOT say you must drop the (TCP) connection - it just
says you must drop TLS - isn't this the moral equivalent of
'null_null_null' (ie, falling back to straight HTTP)?
Happy New Year,
- Ira McDonald (outside consultant at Xerox)
716-442-0609
------------------------------------------
Return-Path: <ipp-owner@pwg.org>
Received: from zombi (zombi.eso.mc.xerox.com) by snorkel.eso.mc.xerox.com (4.1/XeroxClient-1.1)
id AA19360; Fri, 2 Jan 98 17:18:08 EST
Received: from by zombi (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AB28151; Fri, 2 Jan 98 17:12:59 EST
Received: from lists.underscore.com ([199.125.85.31]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <53894(3)>; Fri, 2 Jan 1998 14:02:02 PST
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA11105 for <imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com>; Fri, 2 Jan 1998 16:58:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 2 Jan 1998 16:55:53 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA10735 for ipp-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 1998 16:42:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980102134104.00a08330@garfield>
X-Sender: cmanros@garfield
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 13:41:04 PST
To: ipp@pwg.org
From: Carl-Uno Manros <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>
Subject: IPP> ADM - Wake Up Call
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: ipp-owner@pwg.org
Status: R
Hi all,
I hope you have had a relaxing holiday season and are prepared to help
resolving the last couple of issues that we were too exhausted to tackle
before Christmas.
Please look at the latest drafts of the Model document (just got published
by the IETF) and the Protocol document (which is still in the IETF queue,
but you can get it from the IPP FTP site). Both are dated December 19, 1997.
As far as I am aware there are only two remaining subjects on which we
still need to reach consensus:
1) Should we specify a SHOULD or a SHALL for IPP client support of TLS?
The recommendation out of IETF in Washingtomn was to make it a SHALL, but
that was later challenged on the DL. After Harold's latest contribution in
this discussion, the editors felt that SHOULD would more appropriately
reflect the view of the WG, but I will need confirmation from you that this
is correct.
Randy Turner has already expressed as his view to stay with the SHALL to
maximize inter-operability.
2) Can we avoid having two differeent URIs for the same IPP printer?
Bob Herriot pointed out the problems with two different URIs (one for HTTP
and one for HTTPS) and suggested a solution. Randy Turner came up with a
counter proposal for solving the problem using HTTP's redirection feature.
See the DL contributions on December 19-20. Personally I would like to have
some of this prototyped to make sure we are on firm ground before making
any final changes.
Let us tackle these two issues with renewed power so we can fix this and
get the drafts off to the IESG ASAP.
I wish you all a Happy New Year,
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@cp10.es.xerox.com