Re: [IPP] Adding a section 3.5 "Design Requirements" to IPP Authentication Methods

Michael Sweet via ipp <ipp@pwg.org> Tue, 02 July 2019 00:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ipp-bounces@pwg.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795111201BC for <ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01HGMA1oINjz for <ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pwg.org (mail.pwg.org [50.116.7.199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED28B1201AA for <ipp-archive2@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.pwg.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id A594648AF; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 00:50:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.pwg.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D6527B3; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 00:49:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org
Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org
Received: by mail.pwg.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 2A62A3D4A; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 00:49:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.msweet.org (mail.msweet.org [173.255.209.91]) by mail.pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC70B27B3 for <ipp@pwg.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 00:49:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from retina15x.lan (67-204-236-184.eastlink.ca [67.204.236.184]) by mail.msweet.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0047D8085A; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 00:49:54 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
In-Reply-To: <19BBBF85-58F5-4426-9829-E634753FD2A3@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:49:53 -0400
Message-Id: <15407B5F-66C9-4284-817D-E163576B5508@msweet.org>
References: <19BBBF85-58F5-4426-9829-E634753FD2A3@hp.com>
To: Smith Kennedy <smith.kennedy@hp.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Cc: PWG IPP Workgroup <ipp@pwg.org>
Subject: Re: [IPP] Adding a section 3.5 "Design Requirements" to IPP Authentication Methods
X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: ISTO-PWG Internet Printing Protocol workgroup discussion forum <ipp.pwg.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.pwg.org/mailman/options/ipp>, <mailto:ipp-request@pwg.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipp@pwg.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipp-request@pwg.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>, <mailto:ipp-request@pwg.org?subject=subscribe>
From: Michael Sweet via ipp <ipp@pwg.org>
Reply-To: Michael Sweet <msweet@msweet.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1081346529184652534=="
Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org
Sender: ipp <ipp-bounces@pwg.org>

Smith,

Quick feedback:

- End initial sentence with "are to:" (add "to")?
- Item 1: "currently defined for IPP" is awkward
- Add "and" at the end of item 1.
- Item 2: "Describe implementation considerations for authentication ..." (identification has already happened, you are describing the items that were identified during the development of the document)
- Item 2: "protocol technical concerns" should read "technical protocol concerns"

That would make it:

3.5 Design Requirements

The design requirements for this IPP Authentication Methods Best Practice document are to:

1. Illustrate how each authentication method integrates into IPP interaction flows; and
2. Describe implementation considerations for authentication in general, including factors that influence user experience and technical protocol concerns.

> On Jul 1, 2019, at 3:20 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & Standards Architect) via ipp <ipp@pwg.org> wrote:
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> From our LCRC review of IPP Authentication Methods, it was pointed out in the review that the document was lacking a "Design Requirements" subsection to section 3. We decided to post a draft here on the reflector, and once consensus was reached, to add that to the final draft to be used in the PWG Formal Vote of Approval.
> 
> 
> 3.5 Design Requirements
> 
> The design requirements for this IPP Authentication Methods Best Practice document are:
> 
> 1. Illustrate how each authentication method currently defined for IPP integrates into IPP interaction flows;
> 2. Identify and describe points to be considered in implementing Client or Printer support for authentication in general, including factors that influence user experience as well as protocol technical concerns.
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Smith
> 
> /**
>    Smith Kennedy
>    HP Inc.
> */
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
> ipp@pwg.org
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp

________________________
Michael Sweet



_______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
ipp@pwg.org
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp