Rick,
> On Feb 4, 2019, at 9:24 PM, Yardumian, Rick <RYardumian at ciis.canon.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Canon’s comments
>> 1. The PWG Last Call announcement (February 1st) used the January 16th version of the document but there is also a January 17th version. Which version should be used? We’re assuming January 17th.
Crap, yes please use the Jan 17th version. I apparently missed the announcement for it, and the IPP WG page still points to the Jan 16th version...
> 2. Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 are exactly the same except one is for user Lisa and the other is for user Harry. One section is about Authentication Failure and the other is Authorization Failure. This is a bit confusing since the paragraphs are exactly the same except for the use case user name and the section titles.
Authentication and authorization are not the same thing, but I agree we might want to tweak the wording to make this clear.
> 3. Section 7.3 is a security recommendation description, where SHOULD is used for all list items except for item 3 which states “A Printer MUST support User-provisioned X.509.“. Should this be SHOULD as well?
Let's discuss this, as any deployment of printers in the enterprise will want to use CA-signed certs for the organization instead of self-signed certs generated by the printer...
_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20190204/1d72ff89/attachment.html>