Re: [IPP] IETF I-D on transport port usage
Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com> Wed, 10 December 2014 21:16 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39BBA1A87C2 for <ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:16:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 AilElBiAPW9q for <ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:16:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.pwg.org (www.pwg.org [IPv6:2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe70:b03f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9DAB1A87AA for <ipp-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:16:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by www.pwg.org (Postfix, from userid 502) id CB7948703; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:24:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pwg.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by www.pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F27686F1; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:24:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org
Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org
Received: by www.pwg.org (Postfix, from userid 502) id 74BCD86F2; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:24:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com (mail-wi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) by www.pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAACA86EB for <ipp@pwg.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:24:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ex7so12593288wid.3 for <ipp@pwg.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:15:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=syqynuwxjaz4F0St0yCt2OQcuGZSwm3cVqwpQLGZkSw=; b=EWJmu6gc0RMxxLCzCPoHGlhnxzqzqTFwBrdjWVnTtQ6Y5x60c/xrPyewZxuvA53v2h 7cTJVmGwA9Tsg9PgpcrhfOoHTqsB6rhwNqgsxq/lsXMAG9ORzYvyz6XyKmDTlKSTeh3/ HfYSzBGrm0lNiopYZZXxmyX3rF+zSqHRJi0Gv8hYSSUuQmmMJsnvCdHnqi3ARK6xnnWq Fgqc6tcYG/+sd9ODLMTJep/y9pg7U2aQqCb4jrJBCrLHHeGBA20ShUyMFYXcYNgO8LoJ 9JpHc48zyqsYiLTOyoRT5Eo6v3Ro7xCl+VJ6jdomNPpKCKKZS+vbDW9yGS15AwSTGMeD Tu3w==
X-Received: by 10.180.83.98 with SMTP id p2mr9577157wiy.20.1418246156215; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:15:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.177.218 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:15:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <DEF16D54-9C9A-495D-9EA7-30B1BBAAE591@hp.com>
References: <CAN40gSvcqNcnqwCTFFD1XP6BYG4Xf0nkvLhvxju+RSaz61_Q7Q@mail.gmail.com> <DEF16D54-9C9A-495D-9EA7-30B1BBAAE591@hp.com>
From: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:15:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN40gSv5z80TfaumiVhckboNGiK4p0hDhbH_gorqAVUXz1WTBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect)" <smith.kennedy@hp.com>, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Cc: "<ipp@pwg.org>" <ipp@pwg.org>
Subject: Re: [IPP] IETF I-D on transport port usage
X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Printing Protocol Workgroup discussion list <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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0978323638=="
Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org
Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org
Hi Smith, Ahem...the reference from RFC 2817 (HTTP Upgrade) to IPP is an *informative* reference to the *obsolete* RFC 2565 (IPP/1.0 Model), which itself contains the IESG "poison pill" that says (partially): "This document defines an Experimental protocol for the Internet community. The IESG expects that a revised version of this protocol will be published as Proposed Standard protocol. The Proposed Standard, when published, is expected to change from the protocol defined in this memo. In particular, it is expected that the standards-track version of the protocol will incorporate strong authentication and privacy features, and that an "ipp:" URL type will be defined which supports those security measures." The IESG really disliked IPP/1.0 (for valid security flaw reasons). IPP/1.0 was marked obsolete when RFC 2911 (IPP/1.1) was published 15 years ago, so the discussions in RFC 2817 are not a good source for guidance on port usage (dual or overloaded single). Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB Blue Roof Music / High North Inc http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc mailto: blueroofmusic@gmail.com Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) < smith.kennedy@hp.com> wrote: > Hi Ira, > > I know this is a long-stale thread, but I was just re-reading RFC 2817, > and Section 1 “Motivation” says this, which is germane to this subject (and > even references IPP!): > > 1. Motivation > > The historical practice of deploying HTTP over SSL3 [3] has > distinguished the combination from HTTP alone by a unique URI scheme > and the TCP port number. The scheme ’http’ meant the HTTP protocol > alone on port 80, while ’https’ meant the HTTP protocol over SSL on > port 443. Parallel well-known port numbers have similarly been > requested -- and in some cases, granted -- to distinguish between > secured and unsecured use of other application protocols (e.g. > snews, ftps). This approach effectively halves the number of > available well known ports. > > At the Washington DC IETF meeting in December 1997, the Applications > Area Directors and the IESG reaffirmed that the practice of issuing > parallel "secure" port numbers should be deprecated. The HTTP/1.1 > Upgrade mechanism can apply Transport Layer Security [6] to an open > HTTP connection. > > Just wanted to share this with the group, for whatever reason. > > Smith > > /** > Smith Kennedy > Wireless Architect - Client Software - IPG-PPS > Hewlett-Packard Co. > */ > > > > On 2014-04-07, at 2:50 PM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Found this afternoon by browsing of I-Ds from the active IETF WGs > top-level list: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use/ > > NOTE: This document does consider reuse of the same port for both > ordinary and secure implementations of the same service. It doesn't > take a position, except that the whole document is about conservation > of the IANA-assigned port space. > > Certainly our port 631 reuse in 'ipp:' and 'ipps:' URI is allowed (and > apparently encouraged) by this I-D. > > Cheers, > - Ira > > Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) > Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG > Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG > Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group > Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG > IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB > Blue Roof Music / High North Inc > http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic > http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc > mailto: blueroofmusic@gmail.com > Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 > Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 > > >
_______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
- [IPP] IETF I-D on transport port usage Ira McDonald
- Re: [IPP] IETF I-D on transport port usage Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect)
- Re: [IPP] IETF I-D on transport port usage Ira McDonald