IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Kennedy, Smith \(Wireless & Standards Architect\) via ipp" <ipp@pwg.org> Tue, 02 July 2019 12:20 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 3D1EE120089 for <ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 05:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=hp.com
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 JVB2SjlR14H6 for <ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 05:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pwg.org (mail.pwg.org [50.116.7.199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96F4B12007C for <ipp-archive2@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 05:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.pwg.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 516C6618B; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:20:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.pwg.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C273D83; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:20:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org
Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org
Received: by mail.pwg.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 8FD0126ED; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:20:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-162.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-162.mimecast.com [216.205.24.162]) by mail.pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F010026ED for <ipp@pwg.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:20:46 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hp.com; s=mimecast20180716; t=1562070046; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=n0ZA2YKcHIqRWdM3om4aphHhVDIABEzfZWjns+2CYNM=; b=H+pPDcgMqv0nUjqdkN8G2PGnwcRMnThhDLww2oBIwyZ5uSG0WgA3nrFxJ9AEUhejQNb4At WhtlL0fqh8HcH1eDuCL/vLr2KVMW6eBPLWoh9FO+B8aKDCWMh25NU14EJlOkimoFEXVDqh nb//nYYSW33tI6gGOIDz76LA5fXoHTc=
Received: from NAM05-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam05lp2053.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.50.53]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-183-1Qzt2KBGNr20hLmGKU9euw-1; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 08:20:44 -0400
X-MC-Unique: 1Qzt2KBGNr20hLmGKU9euw-1
Received: from CS1PR8401MB1270.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.169.98.7) by CS1SPR00MB05.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.169.98.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2032.18; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:20:42 +0000
Received: from CS1PR8401MB1270.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::6dda:c6d5:ebb5:5640]) by CS1PR8401MB1270.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::6dda:c6d5:ebb5:5640%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2032.019; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:20:42 +0000
To: Michael Sweet <msweet@msweet.org>
Thread-Topic: [IPP] Adding a section 3.5 "Design Requirements" to IPP Authentication Methods
Thread-Index: AQHVMEH6kPOJ8y4iY0qzdoUYZZo7jaa2f5qAgADBAQA=
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 12:20:42 +0000
Message-ID: <95698169-A488-4A0A-A1B8-577CFBFDD807@hp.com>
References: <19BBBF85-58F5-4426-9829-E634753FD2A3@hp.com> <15407B5F-66C9-4284-817D-E163576B5508@msweet.org>
In-Reply-To: <15407B5F-66C9-4284-817D-E163576B5508@msweet.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=smith.kennedy@hp.com;
x-originating-ip: [174.27.46.49]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4ba80301-cdbd-4906-6f92-08d6fee7b371
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(49563074)(7193020); SRVR:CS1SPR00MB05;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CS1SPR00MB05:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CS1SPR00MB057A4B1A81CE87F98CD52D9EF80@CS1SPR00MB05.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:4714;
x-forefront-prvs: 008663486A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(366004)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(396003)(136003)(6602003)(189003)(199004)(14454004)(3846002)(66616009)(66476007)(66446008)(102836004)(6116002)(229853002)(6246003)(236005)(2616005)(99286004)(26005)(81166006)(476003)(53546011)(66556008)(6916009)(186003)(5660300002)(81156014)(446003)(73956011)(256004)(64756008)(11346002)(76176011)(966005)(8676002)(6506007)(68736007)(486006)(8936002)(6512007)(478600001)(53936002)(86362001)(66066001)(54896002)(6306002)(6486002)(36756003)(7736002)(33656002)(6436002)(91956017)(606006)(99936001)(4326008)(66946007)(2906002)(25786009)(76116006)(316002)(71200400001)(71190400001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CS1SPR00MB05; H:CS1PR8401MB1270.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: hp.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: kv1qDWqEFRInvBNB6G0F4qYkkUJ3mWTj8tQ+xzcb8Pbv1A0p04Mb4ECRgAgZqvXDymtLJYtFX2nyAu6goWEUbN6JRISRZ53655PRAQcmoQ2ulaog9aO6ISx1c2VoCUb7tM/wuNphyi8SGtco9W+eI1v17fFjEZETcUPOyPgYZpg041MHjHCe1ZKwGgMzhltlHak6sfM91HUWyTIVmnHsMRXIeWeeWnu5ugj1CvySlHp68mxAFDxjGQ7G8O54gCrDZ59693BQlzeBv7OTo39e4SY3+i2AVIcm+pK4MKeRMwU6BMiPfpDbHYhE5cWRRcjkWwnUXa0L9GSG9B9CP7XJX6ZF/aV3h6t5p5G9VGp4slsYSoMWYhU4cl199zvVVR43Gy1rZO0NSAthTTrye7B1tTMBKvyQXxZqHKfgOh1CXfk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: hp.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4ba80301-cdbd-4906-6f92-08d6fee7b371
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Jul 2019 12:20:42.0239 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: ca7981a2-785a-463d-b82a-3db87dfc3ce6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: smith.kennedy@hp.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CS1SPR00MB05
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: "Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & Standards Architect) via ipp" <ipp@pwg.org>
Reply-To: "Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & Standards Architect)" <smith.kennedy@hp.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2677508809630647095=="
Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org
Sender: ipp <ipp-bounces@pwg.org>

I like it!

Unless there are any other suggestions, I'm going to run with that, and post an updated document later this morning.

Smith



> On Jul 1, 2019, at 6:49 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet@msweet.org> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ipp@pwg.org>
>> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/NaEyCmZ6o6hjkD2Y5HGAJTC?domain=pwg.org>
> 
> ________________________
> Michael Sweet


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email