attachment
<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>Hi,<br><br></div>I'll consider all of these good comments from Alexey and review briefly<br></div>at IPP WG extra call (25 November) or regular call (2 December).<br><br></div>Cheers,<br>
</div>- Ira<br><div><div><div><div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Alexey Melnikov</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alexey.melnikov@isode.com">alexey.melnikov@isode.com</a>></span><br>
Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:37 AM<br>Subject: AppsDir review of draft-mcdonald-ldap-printer-schema-05.txt<br>To: Ira McDonald <<a href="mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com">blueroofmusic@gmail.com</a>><br>Cc: "<a href="mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org">apps-discuss@ietf.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org">apps-discuss@ietf.org</a>>, Pat Fleming <<a href="mailto:patfleminghtc@gmail.com">patfleminghtc@gmail.com</a>><br>
<br><br>On 19/09/2013 17:34, Ira McDonald wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hello,<br>
<br>
The IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG would like to request<br>
IETF Apps Area review of our updated LDAP Printer Schema (updates<br>
RFC 3712).<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcdonald-ldap-printer-schema-05.txt" target="_blank">http://www.ietf.org/internet-<u></u>drafts/draft-mcdonald-ldap-<u></u>printer-schema-05.txt</a><br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
- Ira (co-chair of IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG and co-editor of this document)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
My apologies for belated review. I hope you find them useful.<br>
<br>
------------------------------<u></u>-----------<br>
<br>
I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on APPSDIR, please see <a href="http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate" target="_blank">http://trac.tools.ietf.org/<u></u>area/app/trac/wiki/<u></u>ApplicationsAreaDirectorate</a> ). <br>
<br>
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.<br>
<br>
Document: draft-mcdonald-ldap-printer-<u></u>schema-05.txt<br>
Title: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): Schema for Printer Services<br>
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov<br>
Review Date: November 18, 2013<br>
IETF Last Call Date: N/A<br>
<br>
Summary: This draft is nearly reading for publication.<br>
<br>
This document defines a schema, object classes and attributes, for<br>
Printers and Print Services, for use with directories that support<br>
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (RFC 4510). This document is<br>
based on the Printer attributes listed in Appendix E of Internet<br>
Printing Protocol/1.1 (IPP) (RFC 2911). Additional Printer<br>
attributes are based on definitions in the Printer MIB v2 (RFC 3805),<br>
IEEE-ISTO PWG Command Set for IEEE 1284 Device ID (PWG 5107.2),<br>
IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP Job and Printer Extensions - Set 3 (PWG 5100.13),<br>
and IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP Everywhere (PWG 5100.14).<br>
<br>
This document is published by the IETF on behalf of the Internet<br>
Printing Protocol Working Group of the IEEE-ISTO Printer Working<br>
Group.<br>
<br>
<br>
Most of the issues I found are minor. In general the document is quite readable.<br>
<br>
General comments:<br>
<br>
I noticed that you redifined various syntaxes to have upper limits on Directory strings. URI and Language Tags have no upper limits. I suspect that limits that you added are going to be sufficient in most cases, but it would be better for your document to call these out explicitly in text.<br>
<br>
<br>
In Section 1:<br>
<br>
This document updates RFC 3712.<br>
<br>
But the draft header says that it Obsoletes it. I think Obsolete is correct, so the statement in Section 1 should be updated to match.<br>
<br>
<br>
In Section 3.3:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Note: When extending other structural classes with auxiliary<br>
classes, printerService SHOULD not be used.<br>
</blockquote>
You should also capitalize "not" according to RFC 2119. There are multiple occurrences of the same problem in multiple places in the document.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
3.4. printerServiceAuxClass<br>
( 1.3.18.0.2.6.257<br>
NAME 'printerServiceAuxClass'<br>
DESC 'Printer information.'<br>
<br>
Fleming, McDonald Expires 19 March 2014 [Page 11]<br>
<br>
Internet-Draft LDAP Schema for Printer Services 19 September 2013<br>
<br>
AUXILIARY<br>
SUP printerAbstract<br>
MAY ( printer-uri $<br>
printer-xri-supported )<br>
)<br>
This auxiliary class defines Printer information. It is derived from<br>
class printerAbstract and thus inherits common Printer attributes.<br>
This class SHOULD be used with a structural class.<br>
</blockquote>
Each directory entry requires a structural object class, so I think this SHOULD is misleading. Also, why is this not a MUST?<br>
I suggest you just delete this sentence or reword it to make it non normative (and point to the document which makes the authoritative statement on this matter.)<br>
<br>
<br>
Similar text in 3.5 and 3.6.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
4. Definition of Attribute Types<br>
<br>
The following attribute types reference matching rule names (instead<br>
of OIDs) for clarity (see Section 6 below). For optional attributes,<br>
if the Printer information is not known, the attribute value SHOULD<br>
not be set. In the following definitions, referenced matching rules<br>
are defined in Section 4 of [RFC4517] (see Section 6 'Definition of<br>
Matching Rules' below).<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think you still meant section 4.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Note: For interoperability and consistent text display, values of<br>
attributes defined in this document: (a) SHOULD be normalized as<br>
recommended in Unicode Format for Network Interchange [RFC5198]; (b)<br>
SHOULD not contain DEL or any C0 or C1 control characters except for<br>
</blockquote>
"SHOULD not" --> "SHOULD NOT"<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
HT, CR, and LF; (c) SHOULD only contain CR and LF characters together<br>
(not as singletons); and SHOULD NOT contain HT, CR, or LF characters<br>
in names, e.g., printer-name and printer-aliases.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
In 4.1:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Note: LDAP application clients SHOULD not attempt to use malformed<br>
URI values read from this attribute. LDAP administrative clients<br>
SHOULD not write malformed URI values into this attribute.<br>
</blockquote>
"SHOULD not" --> "SHOULD NOT" (twice)<br>
<br>
<br>
In 4.4:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Values of language tags SHOULD conform to Tags for Identifying<br>
Languages [BCP47].<br>
</blockquote>
Why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST? I.e. what are possible reason to put anything not specified in BCP47 here?<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
4.12. printer-charset-supported<br>
( 1.3.18.0.2.4.1131<br>
NAME 'printer-charset-supported'<br>
DESC 'One of the charsets supported for the attribute values of<br>
syntax DirectoryString for this directory entry.'<br>
</blockquote>
I don't understand this description. DirectoryString is always in UTF-8.<br>
<br>
How is this LDAP attribute being used?<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch<br>
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{<u></u>255}<br>
)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
4.13. printer-generated-natural-<u></u>language-supported<br>
( 1.3.18.0.2.4.1137<br>
NAME 'printer-generated-natural-<u></u>language-supported'<br>
DESC 'One of the natural languages supported for this directory<br>
entry.'<br>
</blockquote>
Again, I am not entirely sure how this is used. Can you clarify?<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
4.20. printer-number-up-supported<br>
( 1.3.18.0.2.4.1124<br>
NAME 'printer-number-up-supported'<br>
DESC 'Maximum number of print-stream pages that can be imposed upon a<br>
single side of an instance of selected medium by this Printer.'<br>
EQUALITY integerMatch<br>
ORDERING integerOrderingMatch<br>
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27<br>
)<br>
</blockquote>
This is not defined as single-valued. What is the meaning of multiple values?<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
4.35. printer-device-id<br>
( 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.101<br>
NAME 'printer-device-id'<br>
DESC 'The IEEE 1284 Device ID for this Printer.'<br>
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch<br>
SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch<br>
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{<u></u>255}<br>
)<br>
Values of this attribute SHOULD conform to IEEE-ISTO PWG Command Set<br>
Format for IEEE 1284 Device ID [PWG5107.2].<br>
Note: For interoperatibility, values of this attribute SHOULD<br>
include key/value pairs in the following order: (a) all required<br>
key/value pairs (i.e., MANUFACTURER/MFG, MODEL/MDL, and COMMAND<br>
SET/CMD); (b) all optional key/value pairs; and (c) all vendor<br>
key/value pairs.<br>
</blockquote>
How does the advice on ordering interacts with multiple values of the attribute? LDAP multivalued attributes have no ordering of values.<br>
<br>
printer-device-id 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.101<br>
printer-device-service-count 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.102<br>
printer-uuid 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.104<br>
printer-charge-info 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.105<br>
printer-charge-info-uri 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.106<br>
printer-geo-location 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.107<br>
printer-ipp-features-supported 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.108<br>
<br>
This is not necessarily a problem, but I couldn't find a registration for the 1.3.18.0.2.24 OID. The parent OID is owned by IBM.<br>
<br>
<br>
13. Appendix X - Change History<br>
<br>
[ [RFC Editor: This section to be deleted before RFC publication] ]<br>
<br>
-bis document are required to include "Changes since RFC XXXX" section. So you should replace this Appendix with another one that details changes since RFC 3712.<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
Alexey<br>
<br>
</div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>