attachment
<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Mike,</div><div><br></div><div>I agree with your rationale that Document Object should be v1.1 (no new content).</div><div><br></div><div>For Job Extensions (because of adding three operations, especially), I think and</div><div>the folks yesterday on IPP WG call agreed that v2.0 was preferable.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>- Ira</div><div><br></div><div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)<br>Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG</div><div>Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG<br></div><div dir="ltr">Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG<br>Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group<br>Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG<br>IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB<br>Blue Roof Music / High North Inc<br><a style="color:rgb(51,51,255)" href="http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic" target="_blank">http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic</a><br><a style="color:rgb(102,0,204)" href="http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc" target="_blank">http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc</a><br>mailto: <a href="mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com" target="_blank">blueroofmusic@gmail.com</a><br>PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434<br><br><div style="display:inline"></div><div style="display:inline"></div><div style="display:inline"></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:57 AM Michael Sweet via ipp <<a href="mailto:ipp@pwg.org">ipp@pwg.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">All,<br>
<br>
In reviewing the minutes from yesterday's IPP concall I saw the following comments regarding the IPP Document Object v1.1 errata update:<br>
<br>
• Prototyping going on<br>
<br>
I believe this is actually complete in ippserver, and there are of course a LOT of IPP (PDF) printers with document object support already, so I think any prototyping requirement has been met. (not that there is one for an errata update)<br>
<br>
• Need to add "Deprecated" and "Obsolete" definitions<br>
<br>
These will be included in the next (stable) update, per our prior discussions.<br>
<br>
• Will be PWG Call for Objections because it is a 1.1 (errata update) but should it be a 2.0?<br>
<br>
Given that there is NOTHING NEW in this spec, just a general cleanup and a relaxation of the multiple document support requirement, I see no reason to make this 2.0. Any 1.0 compliant implementation is also 1.1 compliant.<br>
<br>
_________________________________________________________<br>
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ipp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ipp@pwg.org" target="_blank">ipp@pwg.org</a><br>
<a href="https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp</a><br>
</blockquote></div>