IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for

Re: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications - Comments by April 15

From: don@lexmark.com
Date: Mon Apr 01 2002 - 12:50:39 EST

  • Next message: Carl: "RE: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications - Comments by April 15"

    I would go along with making ippget CONDITIONALLY mandatory, i.e. if a
    notification method is supported, at least IPPGET must be.

    **********************************************
     Don Wright don@lexmark.com

     Member, IEEE SA Standards Board
     Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
     f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org

     Director, Alliances & Standards
     Lexmark International
     740 New Circle Rd
     Lexington, Ky 40550
     859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
    **********************************************

    "Carl" <carl%manros.com@interlock.lexmark.com> on 03/30/2002 04:30:08 PM

    To: "Carl" <carl%manros.com@interlock.lexmark.com>,
          ipp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com
    cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
    Subject: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications - Comments by
          April 15

    Resend, with spelling corrected etc. The earlier message slipped away before
    I had finished it.

    All,

    Ned Freed communicated in an earlier message to the IPP WG, that the IESG
    found it unacceptable that we had not choosen ONE mandatory delivery method
    for notifications. 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 agreement that they will require all IPPFAX
    implementions to implement the 'ippget' delivery method, and it also
    requires 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>
    <draft-ietf-ipp-notify-mailto-04.txt>
    <draft-ietf-ipp-indp-method-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
    implement these changes.

    I would like to get your reactions back on this proposal no later than April
    15, 2002.

    Carl-Uno Manros
    Chair of IETF IPP WG

    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@manros.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 01 2002 - 12:51:27 EST