Subject: Re: IPP> September Meeting Minutes

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 12:28:34 -0700 (PDT)

>            SECURITY

>            There are reserved port numbers for TLS & SSL on HTTP (port
>            443)

>            TLS is backwards compatible with SSL3.  Actually TLS is
>            SSL3.1  The TLS I-D describes how to support SSL3
>            interoperability.

>            The group then discussed wording choices for stating the
>            security protocol requirements (SSL3, TLS, etc.)  There were
>            four wording alternatives explored:

>            1) IPP Client/Servers must implement TLS with SSL3
>                compatibility
>            2) IPP Client/Servers shall be interoperable with a TLS
>                communicant
>            3) IPP Client/Servers must be TLS compliant.
>            4) #2 above plus "with SSL3 backward compatibility"

>            Decision: #1 with some section talking about a transition to
>            TLS.

I will note carefully that this closely follows the model of having
different ports for different protocols.  Note that TSL/SSL actually are
HTTP over TSL and HTTP over SSL.  We are similarly doing IPP over HTTP.

Should this be the same port or a different port?

Patrick

---

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 12:46:44 PDT

>Should this be the same port or a different port?

Patrick,

Our decision not to pursue a separate port for IPP in the standard was that
there seems to be as many reasons for as against using a separate port.
E.g. Netscape has suggested using a separate port, Microsoft has suggested
using the standard HTTP port, so even among those heavyweights there is no
agreement. 

If it turns out that a particular domain or vendor wants to use a special
port different from the normal HTTP port, it can be included in the Printer
URIs for those IPP printers. And as you notice from the notes above, in
cases where we want to run IPP over a secure connection such as TLS, the
security protocol dictates which port to use, so to define a special port
for IPP makes no sense for such scenarios.

Regards,

Carl-Uno
Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 21:11:34 -0400

Why can't we have it both ways?  That is, assume the standard default
port 80 can be used, but also specify a "standard alternative port"?

	...jay