You are trying to take us back to where we started; going in circles does
not bring us forward.
You did not say anything about the TLS alternative. Do you like that any
better, considering the choices we have?
Carl-Uno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Michael
> Sweet
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 5:44 AM
> To: Manros, Carl-Uno B
> Cc: Keith Moore; IETF-IPP
> Subject: Re: IPP> Re: PRO - Issue 32: Use of Basic & Digest
> Authentication
>
>
> [My Last Comment, I *Promise ;]
>
> "Manros, Carl-Uno B" wrote:
> > ...
> > I have checked the latest documentation from the IETF-HTTP WG and
> > this is what I found:
> >
> > 1) Both Basic and Digest are OPTIONAL for use with HTTP/1.1
> > ...
>
> Then may I respectfully suggest that we make them OPTIONAL for IPP
> as well? If the IETF approves the HTTP/1.1 with that wording, then
> certainly IPP/1.1 will get approved... Let the vendors fight over
> who has the "most secure" IPP implementation... :)
>
> --
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike@easysw.com
> Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com
>