Network Working Group S. Zilles
Request for Comments: 2568 Adobe Systems Inc.
Category: Experimental April 1999
Network Working Group S. Zilles
Request for Comments: 2568 Adobe Systems Inc.
Category: Experimental April 1999
Rationale for the Structure of the Model and Protocol for the Internet Printing Protocol
Internet打印协议模型和协议结构的基本原理
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
这份备忘录为互联网社区定义了一个实验性协议。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。要求进行讨论并提出改进建议。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1999年）。版权所有。
IESG Note
IESG注释
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. Other changes to the protocol are also possible. Implementors are warned that future versions of this protocol may not interoperate with the version of IPP defined in this document, or if they do interoperate, that some protocol features may not be available.
本文档为互联网社区定义了一个实验协议。IESG希望本协议的修订版将作为拟议标准协议出版。拟定标准发布后，预计将改变本备忘录中定义的协议。特别是，预计协议的标准跟踪版本将包含强大的身份验证和隐私功能，并且将定义支持这些安全措施的“ipp:”URL类型。协议的其他更改也是可能的。提醒实施者，本协议的未来版本可能无法与本文档中定义的IPP版本进行互操作，或者，如果实现了互操作，则某些协议功能可能不可用。
The IESG encourages experimentation with this protocol, especially in combination with Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC2246], to help determine how TLS may effectively be used as a security layer for IPP.
IESG鼓励对该协议进行试验，特别是结合传输层安全（TLS）[RFC2246]，以帮助确定如何将TLS有效地用作IPP的安全层。
ABSTRACT
摘要
This document is one of a set of documents, which together describe all aspects of a new Internet Printing Protocol (IPP). IPP is an application level protocol that can be used for distributed printing using Internet tools and technologies. This document describes IPP from a high level view, defines a roadmap for the various documents that form the suite of IPP specifications, and gives background and rationale for the IETF working group's major decisions.
本文档是一组文档之一，这些文档共同描述了新Internet打印协议（IPP）的所有方面。IPP是一种应用程序级协议，可用于使用Internet工具和技术进行分布式打印。本文件从高层次的角度描述IPP，定义形成IPP规范套件的各种文件的路线图，并为IETF工作组的主要决策提供背景和理由。
The full set of IPP documents includes:
整套IPP文件包括：
Design Goals for an Internet Printing Protocol [RFC2567]
Rationale for the Structure and Model and Protocol for the
Internet Printing Protocol (this document)
Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Model and Semantics [RFC2566]
Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Encoding and Transport [RFC2565]
Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Implementer's Guide [ipp-iig]
Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols [RFC2569]
Design Goals for an Internet Printing Protocol [RFC2567]
Rationale for the Structure and Model and Protocol for the
Internet Printing Protocol (this document)
Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Model and Semantics [RFC2566]
Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Encoding and Transport [RFC2565]
Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Implementer's Guide [ipp-iig]
Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols [RFC2569]
The "Design Goals for an Internet Printing Protocol" document takes a broad look at distributed printing functionality, and it enumerates real-life scenarios that help to clarify the features that need to be included in a printing protocol for the Internet. It identifies requirements for three types of users: end users, operators, and administrators. The Design Goals document calls out a subset of end user requirements that are satisfied in IPP/1.0. Operator and administrator requirements are out of scope for version 1.0.
“Internet打印协议的设计目标”文档广泛介绍了分布式打印功能，并列举了有助于澄清需要包含在Internet打印协议中的功能的实际场景。它确定了三类用户的需求：最终用户、操作员和管理员。设计目标文件列出了IPP/1.0中满足的最终用户需求子集。操作员和管理员要求超出了版本1.0的范围。
The "Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Model and Semantics" document describes a simplified model consisting of abstract objects, their attributes, and their operations that is independent of encoding and transport. The model consists of a Printer and a Job object. The Job optionally supports multiple documents. This document also addresses security, internationalization, and directory issues.
“Internet Printing Protocol/1.0：模型和语义”文档描述了一个简化模型，该模型由抽象对象、抽象对象的属性及其独立于编码和传输的操作组成。该模型由打印机和作业对象组成。作业可以选择支持多个文档。本文档还讨论了安全性、国际化和目录问题。
The "Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Encoding and Transport" document is a formal mapping of the abstract operations and attributes defined in the model document onto HTTP/1.1. It defines the encoding rules for a new Internet media type called "application/ipp".
“Internet打印协议/1.0：编码和传输”文档是模型文档中定义的抽象操作和属性到HTTP/1.1的正式映射。它定义了称为“应用程序/ipp”的新Internet媒体类型的编码规则。
The "Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Implementer's Guide" document gives insight and advice to implementers of IPP clients and IPP objects. It is intended to help them understand IPP/1.0 and some of the considerations that may assist them in the design of their client and/or IPP object implementations. For example, a typical order of processing requests is given, including error checking. Motivation for some of the specification decisions is also included.
“互联网打印协议/1.0：实施者指南”文件为IPP客户端和IPP对象的实施者提供了见解和建议。它旨在帮助他们理解IPP/1.0以及一些可能有助于他们设计客户端和/或IPP对象实现的注意事项。例如，给出了处理请求的典型顺序，包括错误检查。还包括一些规范决策的动机。
The "Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols" document gives some advice to implementers of gateways between IPP and LPD (Line Printer Daemon) implementations.
“LPD和IPP协议之间的映射”文档为IPP和LPD（Line Printer Daemon）实现之间网关的实现者提供了一些建议。
The Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) is an application level protocol that can be used for distributed printing on the Internet. This protocol defines interactions between a client and a server. The
Internet打印协议（IPP）是一种应用程序级协议，可用于Internet上的分布式打印。该协议定义了客户端和服务器之间的交互。这个
protocol allows a client to inquire about capabilities of a printer, to submit print jobs and to inquire about and cancel print jobs. The server for these requests is the Printer; the Printer is an abstraction of a generic document output device and/or a print service provider. Thus, the Printer could be a real printing device, such as a computer printer or fax output device, or it could be a service that interfaced with output devices.
协议允许客户端查询打印机的功能、提交打印作业以及查询和取消打印作业。这些请求的服务器是打印机；打印机是通用文档输出设备和/或打印服务提供商的抽象。因此，打印机可以是真正的打印设备，例如计算机打印机或传真输出设备，也可以是与输出设备接口的服务。
The protocol is heavily influenced by the printing model introduced in the Document Printing Application (DPA) [ISO10175] standard. Although DPA specifies both end user and administrative features, IPP version 1.0 (IPP/1.0) focuses only on end user functionality.
该协议受到文档打印应用程序（DPA）[ISO10175]标准中引入的打印模型的严重影响。虽然DPA同时指定了最终用户和管理功能，但IPP版本1.0（IPP/1.0）只关注最终用户功能。
The architecture for IPP defines (in the Model and Semantics document [RFC2566]) an abstract Model for the data which is used to control the printing process and to provide information about the process and the capabilities of the Printer. This abstract Model is hierarchical in nature and reflects the structure of the Printer and the Jobs that may be being processed by the Printer.
IPP的体系结构（在模型和语义文档[RFC2566]中）定义了数据的抽象模型，用于控制打印过程，并提供有关过程和打印机功能的信息。该抽象模型本质上是分层的，反映了打印机的结构和打印机可能正在处理的作业。
The Internet provides a channel between the client and the server/Printer. Use of this channel requires flattening and sequencing the hierarchical Model data. Therefore, the IPP also defines (in the Encoding and Transport document [RFC2565]) an encoding of the data in the model for transfer between the client and server. This transfer of data may be either a request or the response to a request.
Internet在客户端和服务器/打印机之间提供了一个通道。使用此通道需要对分层模型数据进行展平和排序。因此，IPP还定义（在编码和传输文档[RFC2565]中）模型中的数据编码，以便在客户端和服务器之间传输。这种数据传输可以是请求，也可以是对请求的响应。
Finally, the IPP defines (in the Encoding and Transport document [RFC2565]) a protocol for transferring the encoded request and response data between the client and the server/Printer.
最后，IPP定义（在编码和传输文档[RFC2565]中）用于在客户端和服务器/打印机之间传输编码请求和响应数据的协议。
An example of a typical interaction would be a request from the client to create a print job. The client would assemble the Model data to be associated with that job, such as the name of the job, the media to use, the number of pages to place on each media instance, etc. This data would then be encoded according to the Protocol and would be transmitted according to the Protocol. The server/Printer would receive the encoded Model data, decode it into a form understood by the server/Printer and, based on that data, do one of two things: (1) accept the job or (2) reject the job. In either case, the server must construct a response in terms of the Model data, encode that response according to the Protocol and transmit that encoded Model data as the response to the request using the Protocol.
典型交互的一个示例是客户端请求创建打印作业。客户机将组装与该作业关联的模型数据，例如作业名称、要使用的媒体、每个媒体实例上要放置的页数等。然后，该数据将根据协议进行编码，并根据协议进行传输。服务器/打印机将接收编码的模型数据，将其解码为服务器/打印机可以理解的形式，并根据该数据执行以下两项操作之一：（1）接受作业或（2）拒绝作业。在任何一种情况下，服务器都必须根据模型数据构造响应，根据协议对该响应进行编码，并使用协议将编码后的模型数据作为对请求的响应进行传输。
Another part of the IPP architecture is the Directory Schema described in the model document. The role of a Directory Schema is to provide a standard set of attributes which might be used to query a
IPP体系结构的另一部分是模型文档中描述的目录模式。目录模式的作用是提供一组标准属性，这些属性可用于查询
directory service for the URI of a Printer that is likely to meet the needs of the client. The IPP architecture also addresses security issues such as control of access to server/Printers and secure transmissions of requests, response and the data to be printed.
可能满足客户端需要的打印机URI的目录服务。IPP体系结构还解决了安全问题，如对服务器/打印机访问的控制以及请求、响应和待打印数据的安全传输。
Because the (abstract) server/Printer encompasses a wide range of implementations, it is necessary to make some assumptions about a minimal implementation. The most likely minimal implementation is one that is embedded in an output device running a specialized real time operating system and with limited processing, memory and storage capabilities. This printer will be connected to the Internet and will have at least a TCP/IP capability with (likely) SNMP [RFC1905, RFC1906] support for the Internet connection. In addition, it is likely the the Printer will be an HTML/HTTP server to allow direct user access to information about the printer.
由于（抽象）服务器/打印机包含广泛的实现，因此有必要对最小实现进行一些假设。最有可能的最小实现是嵌入在运行专用实时操作系统的输出设备中，并且处理、内存和存储能力有限。此打印机将连接到Internet，并且至少具有TCP/IP功能，并且（可能）支持Internet连接的SNMP[RFC1905，RFC1906]。此外，打印机可能是一个HTML/HTTP服务器，允许用户直接访问有关打印机的信息。
The Model [RFC2566] is defined independently of any encoding of the Model data both to support the likely uses of IPP and to be robust with respect to the possibility of alternate encoding.
模型[RFC2566]的定义独立于模型数据的任何编码，以支持IPP的可能使用，并对替代编码的可能性具有鲁棒性。
It is expected that a client or server/Printer would represent the Model data in some data structure within the applications/servers that support IPP. Therefore, the Model was designed to make that representation straightforward. Typically a parser or formatter would be used to convert from or to the encoded data format. Once in an internal form suitable to a product, the data can be manipulated by the product. For example, the data sent with a Print Job can be used to control the processing of that Print Job.
预计客户机或服务器/打印机将在支持IPP的应用程序/服务器中的某些数据结构中表示模型数据。因此，该模型的设计目的是使该表示更直观。通常，将使用解析器或格式化程序从编码数据格式转换为编码数据格式。一旦数据以适合于产品的内部形式出现，产品就可以对其进行操作。例如，与打印作业一起发送的数据可用于控制该打印作业的处理。
The semantics of IPP are attached to the (abstract) Model. Therefore, the application/server is not dependent on the encoding of the Model data, and it is possible to consider alternative mechanisms and formats by which the data could be transmitted from a client to a server; for example, a server could have a direct, client-less GUI interface that might be used to accept some kinds of Print Jobs. This independence would also allow a different encoding and/or transmission mechanism to be used if the ones adopted here were shown to be overly limiting in the future. Such a change could be migrated into new products as an alternate protocol stack/parser for the Model data.
IPP的语义附加到（抽象）模型。因此，应用/服务器不依赖于模型数据的编码，并且可以考虑替代的机制和格式，通过该机制和数据，可以将数据从客户端发送到服务器；例如，服务器可以有一个直接的、无客户端的GUI界面，用于接受某些类型的打印作业。这种独立性还允许使用不同的编码和/或传输机制，如果这里采用的编码和/或传输机制在将来被证明是过度限制的。这种更改可以作为模型数据的替代协议栈/解析器迁移到新产品中。
Having an abstract Model also allows the Model data to be aligned with the (abstract) model used in the Printer [RFC1759], Job and Host Resources MIBs. This provides consistency in interpretation of the data obtained independently of how the data is accessed, whether via IPP or via SNMP [RFC1905, RFC1906] and the Printer/Job MIBs.
拥有抽象模型还允许模型数据与打印机[RFC1759]、作业和主机资源MIB中使用的（抽象）模型对齐。无论是通过IPP还是通过SNMP[RFC1905、RFC1906]和打印机/作业MIB，这都可以提供独立于数据访问方式获得的数据解释的一致性。
There is one aspect of the Model that deserves some extra explanation. There are two ways for identifying a Job object: (a) with a Job URI and (b) using a combination of the Printer URI and a Job ID (a 32 bit positive integer). Allowing Job objects to have URIs allows for flexibility and scalability. For example a job could be moved from a printer with a large backlog to one with a smaller load and the job identification, the Job object URI, need not change. However, many existing printing systems have local models or interface constraints that force Job objects to be identified using only a 32-bit positive integer rather than a URI. This numeric Job ID is only unique within the context of the Printer object to which the create request was originally submitted. In order to allow both types of client access to Jobs (either by Job URI or by numeric Job ID), when the Printer object successfully processes a create request and creates a new Job, the Printer object generates both a Job URI and a Job ID for the new Job object. This requirement allows all clients to access Printer objects and Job objects independent of any local constraints imposed on the client implementation.
该模型有一个方面值得额外解释。识别作业对象有两种方法：（a）使用作业URI；（b）使用打印机URI和作业ID（32位正整数）的组合。允许作业对象具有URI允许灵活性和可伸缩性。例如，可以将一个作业从一个积压工作较多的打印机移动到一个负载较小的打印机，并且作业标识（作业对象URI）无需更改。然而，许多现有的打印系统都具有本地模型或接口约束，这些约束迫使作业对象仅使用32位正整数而不是URI来标识。此数字作业ID仅在创建请求最初提交到的打印机对象的上下文中是唯一的。为了允许两种类型的客户端访问作业（通过作业URI或数字作业ID），当打印机对象成功处理创建请求并创建新作业时，打印机对象将为新作业对象生成作业URI和作业ID。此要求允许所有客户端访问打印机对象和作业对象，而不受对客户端实现施加的任何本地约束的影响。
There are two parts to the Protocol: (1) the encoding of the Model data and (2) the mechanism for transmitting the model data between client and server.
该协议包括两部分：（1）模型数据的编码和（2）在客户端和服务器之间传输模型数据的机制。
To make it simpler to develop embedded printers, a very simple binary encoding has been chosen. This encoding is adequate to represent the kinds of data that occur within the Model. It has a simple structure consisting of sequences of attributes. Each attribute has a name, prefixed by a name length, and a value. The names are strings constrained to characters from a subset of ASCII. The values are either scalars or a sequence of scalars. Each scalar value has a length specification and a value tag which indicates the type of the value. The value type has two parts: a major class part, such as integer or string, and a minor class part which distinguishes the usage of the major class, such as dateTime string. Tagging of the values with type information allows for introducing new value types at some future time.
为了简化嵌入式打印机的开发，我们选择了一种非常简单的二进制编码。这种编码足以表示模型中出现的数据类型。它具有由属性序列组成的简单结构。每个属性都有一个名称（前缀为名称长度）和一个值。名称是限制为ASCII子集中的字符的字符串。这些值是标量或标量序列。每个标量值都有一个长度规范和一个值标记，用于指示值的类型。值类型有两个部分：主要类部分，如整数或字符串；次要类部分，用于区分主要类的用法，如dateTime字符串。使用类型信息标记值可以在将来引入新的值类型。
A fully encoded request/response has a version number, an operation (for a request) or a status and optionally a status message (for a response), associated parameters and attributes which are encoded Model data and, optionally (for a request), print data following the Model data.
完全编码的请求/响应具有版本号、操作（用于请求）或状态以及可选的状态消息（用于响应）、作为编码模型数据的相关参数和属性，以及可选的（用于请求）在模型数据之后打印数据。
The chosen mechanism for transmitting the encoded Model data is HTTP 1.1 Post (and associated response). No modifications to HTTP 1.1 are proposed or required. The sole role of the Transmission Mechanism is to provide a transfer of encoded Model data from/to the client to/from the server. This could be done using any data delivery mechanism. The key reasons why HTTP 1.1 Post is used are given below. The most important of these is the first. With perhaps this exception, these reasons could be satisfied by other mechanisms. There is no claim that this list uniquely determines a choice of mechanism.
所选择的传输编码模型数据的机制是HTTP1.1POST（以及相关的响应）。未提议或要求对HTTP 1.1进行任何修改。传输机制的唯一作用是提供编码模型数据从客户机到服务器的传输。这可以使用任何数据传递机制来完成。使用HTTP 1.1 Post的主要原因如下所示。其中最重要的是第一个。也许除了这一例外，其他机制可以满足这些理由。没有人声称此列表唯一地决定了机制的选择。
1. HTTP 1.0 is already widely deployed and, based on the recent evidence, HTTP 1.1 is being widely deployed as the manufacturers release new products. The performance benefits of HTTP 1.1 have been shown and manufactures are reacting positively.
1. HTTP 1.0已经被广泛部署，根据最近的证据，HTTP 1.1正在制造商发布新产品时被广泛部署。HTTP 1.1的性能优势已经显示出来，制造商对此反应积极。
Wide deployment has meant that many of the problems of making a protocol work in a wide range of environments from local net to Intranet to Internet have been solved and will stay solved with HTTP 1.1 deployment.
广泛部署意味着使协议在从本地网络到内部网再到Internet的广泛环境中工作的许多问题已经解决，并且将通过HTTP 1.1部署继续解决。
2. HTTP 1.1 solves most of the problems that might have required a new protocol to be developed. HTTP 1.1 allows persistent connections that make a multi-message protocol be more efficient; for example it is practical to have separate Create-Job and Send-Document messages. Chunking allows the transmission of large print files without having to pre-scan the file to determine the file length. The accept headers allow the client's protocol and localization desires to be transmitted with the IPP operations and data. If the Model were to provide for the redirection of Job requests, such as Cancel-Job, when a Job is moved, the HTTP redirect response allows a client to be informed when a Job he is interested in is moved to another server/Printer for any reason.
2. HTTP 1.1解决了可能需要开发新协议的大多数问题。HTTP 1.1允许持久连接，使多消息协议更加高效；例如，可以使用单独的创建作业和发送文档消息。分块允许传输大型打印文件，而无需预先扫描文件以确定文件长度。accept标头允许将客户端的协议和本地化信息与IPP操作和数据一起传输。如果模型在移动作业时提供作业请求的重定向，例如取消作业，则HTTP重定向响应允许在客户机感兴趣的作业因任何原因移动到另一台服务器/打印机时通知客户机。
3. Most network Printers will be implementing HTTP servers for reasons other than IPP. These network attached Printers want to provide information on how to use the printer, its current state, HELP information, etc. in HTML. This requires having an HTTP server which would be available to do IPP functions as well.
3. 大多数网络打印机将基于IPP以外的原因实施HTTP服务器。这些网络连接打印机希望以HTML格式提供有关如何使用打印机、打印机当前状态、帮助信息等的信息。这需要有一个HTTP服务器，该服务器也可用于执行IPP功能。
4. Most of the complexity of HTTP 1.1 is concerned with the implementation of HTTP proxies and not the implementation of HTTP clients and/or servers. Work is proceeding in the HTTP Working Group to help identify what must be done by a server. As the Encoding and Transport document shows, that is not very much.
4. HTTP 1.1的大部分复杂性与HTTP代理的实现有关，而不是HTTP客户端和/或服务器的实现。HTTP工作组正在进行工作，以帮助确定服务器必须执行的操作。正如编码和运输文件所示，这并不多。
5. HTTP implementations provide support for handling URLs that would have to be provided if a new protocol were defined.
5. HTTP实现为处理URL提供了支持，如果定义了新协议，则必须提供这些URL。
6. An HTTP based solution fits well with the Internet security mechanisms that are currently deployed or being deployed. HTTP will run over SSL3. The digest access authentication mechanism of HTTP 1.1 provides an adequate level of access control. These solutions are deployed and in practical use; a new solution would require extensive use to have the same degree of confidence in its security. Note: SSL3 is not on the IETF standards track.
6. 基于HTTP的解决方案非常适合当前部署或正在部署的Internet安全机制。HTTP将在SSL3上运行。HTTP 1.1的摘要访问身份验证机制提供了适当级别的访问控制。这些解决方案已部署并投入实际使用；新的解决方案需要广泛使用，才能对其安全性有同样程度的信心。注：SSL3不在IETF标准轨道上。
7. HTTP provides an extensibility model that a new protocol would have to develop independently. In particular, the headers, intent-types (via Internet Media Types) and error codes have wide acceptance and a useful set of definitions and methods for extension.
7. HTTP提供了一个新协议必须独立开发的扩展性模型。特别是，标题、意图类型（通过Internet媒体类型）和错误代码具有广泛的接受性，并且有一组有用的扩展定义和方法。
8. Although not strictly a reason why IPP should use HTTP as the transmission protocol, it is extremely helpful that there are many prototyping tools that work with HTTP and that CGI scripts can be used to test and debug parts of the protocol.
8. 虽然IPP使用HTTP作为传输协议并非严格意义上的原因，但有许多原型工具可以使用HTTP，并且CGI脚本可以用于测试和调试协议的部分内容，这非常有帮助。
9. Finally, the POST method was chosen to carry the print data because its usage for data transmission has been established, it works and the results are available via CGI scripts or servlets. Creating a new method would have better identified the intended use of the POSTed data, but a new method would be more difficult to deploy. Assigning a new default port for IPP provided the necessary identification with minimal impact to installed infrastructure, so was chosen instead.
9. 最后，选择POST方法来携带打印数据，因为它用于数据传输的用途已经确定，它可以工作，并且结果可以通过CGI脚本或servlet获得。创建一个新方法可以更好地确定发布数据的预期用途，但部署一个新方法会更加困难。为IPP分配一个新的默认端口提供了必要的标识，对已安装的基础设施的影响最小，因此选择了此选项。
Successful use of IPP depends on the client finding a suitable IPP enabled Printer to which to send a IPP requests, such as print a job. This task is simplified if there is a Directory Service which can be queried for a suitable Printer. The purpose of the Directory Schema is to have a standard description of Printer attributes that can be associated the URI for the printer. These attributes are a subset of the Model attributes and can be encoded in the appropriate query syntax for the Directory Service being used by the client.
IPP的成功使用取决于客户端是否找到合适的支持IPP的打印机，以便向其发送IPP请求，例如打印作业。如果可以查询目录服务以查找合适的打印机，则此任务将简化。目录架构的目的是对打印机属性进行标准描述，这些属性可以与打印机的URI关联。这些属性是模型属性的子集，可以用客户机正在使用的目录服务的适当查询语法进行编码。
Security is an area of active work on the Internet. Complete solutions to a wide range of security concerns are not yet available. Therefore, in the design of IPP, the focus has been on identifying a set of security protocols/features that are implemented (or currently implementable) and solve real problems with distributed printing. The two areas that seem appropriate to support are: (1) authorization to use a Printer and (2) secure interaction with a printer. The chosen mechanisms are the digest authentication mechanism of HTTP 1.1 and SSL3 [SSL] secure communication mechanism.
安全是互联网上一个活跃的工作领域。目前还没有针对各种安全问题的完整解决方案。因此，在IPP的设计中，重点是确定一组已实施（或当前可实施）的安全协议/功能，并解决分布式打印的实际问题。两个似乎适合支持的领域是：（1）使用打印机的授权和（2）与打印机的安全交互。选择的机制是HTTP 1.1的摘要身份验证机制和SSL3[SSL]安全通信机制。
[ipp-iig] Hastings, T. and C. Manros, "Internet Printing Protocol/1.0:Implementer's Guide", Work in Progress.
[ipp iig]Hastings，T.和C.Manros，“互联网打印协议/1.0：实施者指南”，正在进行的工作。
[RFC2569] Herriot, R., Hastings, T., Jacobs, N. and J. Martin, "Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols", RFC 2569, April 1999.
[RFC2569]Herriot，R.，Hastings，T.，Jacobs，N.和J.Martin，“LPD和IPP协议之间的映射”，RFC 2569，1999年4月。
[RFC2566] deBry, R., Isaacson, S., Hastings, T., Herriot, R. and P. Powell, "Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Model and Semantics", RFC 2566, April 1999.
[RFC2566]deBry，R.，Isaacson，S.，Hastings，T.，Herriot，R.和P.Powell，“互联网打印协议/1.0：模型和语义”，RFC 2566，1999年4月。
[RFC2565] Herriot, R., Butler, S., Moore, P. and R. Tuner, "Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Encoding and Transport", RFC 2565, April 1999.
[RFC2565]Herriot，R.，Butler，S.，Moore，P.和R.Tuner，“互联网打印协议/1.0：编码和传输”，RFC 25651999年4月。
[RFC2567] Wright, D., "Design Goals for an Internet Printing Protocol", RFC 2567, April 1999.
[RFC2567]Wright，D.，“互联网打印协议的设计目标”，RFC2567，1999年4月。
[ISO10175] ISO/IEC 10175 "Document Printing Application (DPA)", June 1996.
[ISO10175]ISO/IEC 10175“文件打印应用（DPA）”，1996年6月。
[RFC1759] Smith, R., Wright, F., Hastings, T., Zilles, S. and J. Gyllenskog, "Printer MIB", RFC 1759, March 1995.
[RFC1759]Smith，R.，Wright，F.，Hastings，T.，Zilles，S.和J.Gylenskog，“打印机MIB”，RFC 1759，1995年3月。
[RFC1905] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, January 1996.
[RFC1905]Case，J.，McCloghrie，K.，Rose，M.和S.Waldbusser，“简单网络管理协议（SNMPv2）版本2的协议操作”，RFC 1905，1996年1月。
[RFC1906] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, January 1996.
[RFC1906]Case，J.，McCloghrie，K.，Rose，M.和S.Waldbusser，“简单网络管理协议（SNMPv2）版本2的传输映射”，RFC 1906，1996年1月。
[SSL] Netscape, The SSL Protocol, Version 3, (Text version 3.02), November 1996.
[SSL]Netscape，SSL协议，版本3，（文本版本3.02），1996年11月。
Stephen Zilles Adobe Systems Incorporated 345 Park Avenue MailStop W14 San Jose, CA 95110-2704
Stephen Zilles Adobe Systems Incorporated加利福尼亚州圣何塞市公园大道345号邮站W14号，邮编95110-2704
Phone: +1 408 536-4766
Fax: +1 408 537-4042
EMail: szilles@adobe.com
Phone: +1 408 536-4766
Fax: +1 408 537-4042
EMail: szilles@adobe.com
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1999年）。版权所有。
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。