The short answer to the enclosed query is "the HTTP working group hasn't addressed this issue". I actually think that we may have some responsibility to deal with the https/shttp issues, though, and thus I'd like to see some discussion of this on the working group mailing list. Opinions? -- http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
attached mail follows:
Larry, we have had a discussion in the IPP security sbgroup, which has resulted in a question for you. We need some way of signalling whether a particular printer optionally supports or even enforces the use of a secure protocol in combination with IPP. Examples that we are looking at include RFC 2069 security and the various versions of SSL. I believe that if SSL is used in combination with HTTP it is currently identified with "SHTTP" in the URL rather than just "HTTP". Is this correct? If we could assume that all security protocols used with HTTP would carry their own protocol names, it would make life a lot simpler for us. As we are planning to identify printers with a URL address, we would then give a printer that can handle both secure and non-secure print requests two URL names, one with "http://..." and one with "Shttp://...." and the IPP client can then invoke operations on one or the other. A printer that only supports secure printing, would obviously only have an "Shttp://..." address. So I am back to our question: Can we assume that secure versions of HTTP will always have separate names, eg. what is planned for RFC 2069? Our assumption is that once you are in the secure protocol, you can then negotiate which security features within that protocol you want to use. You may want to forward this note to the HTTP list, in case you do not have an easy answer. Thankful for your feedback, 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: manros@cp10.es.xerox.comReceived on Friday, 28 February 1997 12:18:57 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:30 EDT