attachment-0001
Hi,<br><br>For review during today's IPP WG meeting, if time allows, below are the collected <br>PWG Last Call comments received on IPP/2.0 Second Edition.<br><br>Cheers,<br>- Ira (Co-editor of IPP/2.0 SE)<br><br>==================<br>
<br>Gail Giansiracusa <<a href="mailto:Gail.Giansiracusa@ktd-kyocera.com">Gail.Giansiracusa@ktd-kyocera.com</a>> Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:43 PM<br>To: <a href="mailto:ipp@pwg.org">ipp@pwg.org</a><br><br>Hi All,<br><br>
Just a few editorial comments...<br><br>Section 4.1:<br>- RFC2246 is not listed in this section but it is listed in Table 1 as RECOMMENDED<br><br>Section 4.2:<br>- RFC4346 is listed in Section 4.1 but not again in 4.2 even though it is listed in Table 1 as <br>
RECOMMENDED for both v2.0 and v2.1 (and v2.2). I would suggest that RFC4346 be listed <br>again in 4.2. (RECOMMENDED RFC5107.2 is listed in section 4.1 and again in section 4.2.)<br>- RFC2246 is not listed in this section but is listed in Table 1 as RECOMMENDED<br>
<br>Section 4.3:<br>- RFC5100.7 is already listed as REQUIRED in 4.2. Why is listed again here? It should be <br>pulled in by default from line 334 "An IPP/2.2 printer MUST support the IETF or PWG <br>specifications defined for IPP/2.1 plus the following" <br>
- I would suggest that RFC4346 be listed again in 4.3 (Still Recommended)<br>- RFC2246 is not listed in this section but is listed in Table 1 as RECOMMENDED<br><br>Section 6.2:<br>- Note 7 is not indented.<br>RFC5100.7 is stated as required in section 4.2 and Table 1. However, there are at least two <br>
attributes, "document-name-supplied" and "document-format-supplied" which are REQUIRED <br>in RFC5100.7 but not listed in Table 8. They are listed in Table 9. <br>So, what does "MUST support" mean in Sections 4.1 thru 4.3?<br>
<br>Gail Giansiracusa<br>Kyocera Mita<br>(408) 246 2778<br><br>=======================<br><br>Jerry Thrasher <<a href="mailto:thrasher@lexmark.com">thrasher@lexmark.com</a>> Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:06 AM<br>To: <a href="mailto:ipp@pwg.org">ipp@pwg.org</a><br>
<br>correcting the subject line (document date is Sept. 26, 2010)<br>_____________________________________<br><br>----- Forwarded by Jerry Thrasher/Lexmark on 10/29/2010 10:06 AM -----<br><a href="mailto:thrasher@lexmark.com">thrasher@lexmark.com</a><br>
10/29/2010 10:05 AM<br>To <<a href="mailto:ipp@pwg.org">ipp@pwg.org</a>><br>Subject [IPP] Lexmark has reviewed IPP 2.1 SE and has the following comment<br><br>line 184..185.....This sentence needs to be reworded, suggest (.....more supplies such as <br>
paper and toner, and have a larger memory capacity that the other classes.)<br><br>========================<br><br><a href="mailto:Mac.Matsuda@brother.com">Mac.Matsuda@brother.com</a> <<a href="mailto:Mac.Matsuda@brother.com">Mac.Matsuda@brother.com</a>> Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:16 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:ipp@pwg.org">ipp@pwg.org</a><br><br>Dear all,<br><br>We have just a comment as below.<br><br>Section 6.2<br>-Print-quality/Print-default/Print-quality-supported<br>-Printer-resolution/printer-resolution-default/printer-resolution-supported<br>
<br>We suppose these two attributes are basically the same resource.<br><br>Our recommendation is to have some guide line on how to use or change the <br>Printer-resolution attributes as an option.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Mac<br>
------------------------------------------<br>
Mac Matsuda<br>
Brother International Corp. USA<br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:mac.matsuda@brother.com">mac.matsuda@brother.com</a><br>
Tel:1-908-575-3734/ Cell:1-908-906-1312<br><br>========================<br><br><a href="mailto:Nancy.Chen@okidata.com">Nancy.Chen@okidata.com</a> <<a href="mailto:Nancy.Chen@okidata.com">Nancy.Chen@okidata.com</a>> Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:55 AM<br>
To: Ira McDonald <<a href="mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com">blueroofmusic@gmail.com</a>><br><br>Hi Ira,<br><br>I will vote yes, but would you please take a look at the spec on line 652, where the link <br>should belong to the previous line and this line should begin with a new reference for <br>
"[PWG5100.9]", which currently stuck at the end of the link to the previous reference?<br> <br>-Nancy<br><br>========================<br><br>William Wagner <<a href="mailto:wamwagner@comcast.net">wamwagner@comcast.net</a>> Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:06 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:ipp@pwg.org">ipp@pwg.org</a><br><br>All,<br><br>Sorry about these comments on IPP Version 2.0 Second Edition coming after<br>PWG last call, but I have just been made aware of them. They are strictly<br>
editorial and I request that they be considered with the last call comments<br>next Monday. The comments come from people looking at this document afresh,<br>un-influenced by having looked at this stuff for so long. Although I<br>
understand that many of the objections are to things intentionally done as<br>they are to parallel the first edition, I believe that the observations have<br>merit in that they reflect what may be confusing to implementers.<br>
<br>-----------------------------------------<br><br>1. Section 5:<br><br>Section 5 Heading, the subsections and the tables 3, 4, and 5 listing the<br>conformance requirements for the operations in IPP/2.0, IPP/2.1 and IPP/2.2<br>
are all labeled "Required Operations in...". However they also include<br>Recommended and Optional operations. This is confusing. Perhaps re-labeling<br>Sections and tables (other than Table 2) "IPP/XXX Conformance Requirements-<br>
Operations" might be clearer?<br><br>2. Section 6:<br><br>In a similar way, Section 6 Heading, subheadings, tables (other than Table<br>6) and introductory paragraph all refer to "Required Attributes" when in<br>
fact some recommended and optional attributes are also included and<br>referenced in notes. It is understood that may reflect a desire to explain<br>why the attribute is not required, but to have a table labeled Required<br>
Attributes which contains attributes which are recommended or optional was<br>found confusing. I suggest that the "Required" table contain just Required<br>attributes. If it is necessary to explain why some attributes are not<br>
required perhaps a separate table or just a separate paragraph somewhere<br>else in the document could identify these attributes and the rational.<br><br>2. Section 6.1:<br><br>Although the text in this section and in the subsequent sections does<br>
explicitly mention that the attributes included in table 6 are required in<br>IPP/2.0,/2.1 and /2.2, the subsection heading "Original Required IPP/1.1<br>Attributes" might not call enough attention to the fact that these are<br>
IPP/2.x required attributes as well. Perhaps re-labeling the subsection<br>"Original Required IPP/1.1 Attributes also Required for IPP/2.0,/2.1 and<br>/2.2", something of that sort would help.<br><br>3. Section 6.3:<br>
<br>The printer-alert and printer-alert-description attributes are the only<br>entries with conformance changes between versions not mentioned in the<br>notes. For clarity, this section should include a note about the status<br>
change from table 7.<br><br>Notes 2 and 4 in section 6.4 already do this for the same change to other<br>attributes between tables 8 and 9.<br><br>4. Section 6.3:<br><br>The media-col, media-col-default and media-col-supported entries in table 8<br>
all refer to note 1, but the note only describes the media-col entry.<br><br>5. Section 6.3:<br><br>It may just be me, but I think it might help to have some explanation of<br>notes 1 & 2, which state that the collection but not all members of the<br>
collection are required.<br><br>6. Table 8<br><br>The proof-print and which-jobs-supported attribute entries in the table<br>incorrectly refer to note 3 instead of the actual reference in note 4.<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Bill Wagner<br>
<br>===============================<br>
<div style="visibility: hidden; left: -5000px;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup"></div><style type="text/css">#avg_ls_inline_popup{position: absolute;z-index: 9999;padding: 0px 0px;margin-left: 0px;margin-top: 0px;overflow: hidden;word-wrap: break-word;color: black;font-size: 10px;text-align: left;line-height: 130%;}</style>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.