IPP> MOD - IPP/1.1 Internet-Draft 01 posted and sent to IETF

[Hastings, Tom N]

The IETF Secretariat got confused with the draft-ietf-ipp-model-v11-00.txt
that we sent them and they posted last November's version of IPP/1.0
instead.  So Carl-Uno sent them another one last week, after increasing the
file name by 01 (draft-ietf-ipp-model-v11-01.txt).  While doing that he took
the opportunity to remove the tiff/image example value from the list of
example values for the mimeMediaType attribute sytnax (ipp-mod Section
4.1.9).  He did so, because of the controversy over what did the parameters
;application=faxbw and ;application=faxcolor really mean:

Was the parameter required in a job submission in order to indicate that the
content was tiff/fx (RFC 2301) as opposed to the 1992 Adobe TIFF version
6.0?  

Or was the inclusion of the parameter optional?  

If left out, could the content still be tiff/fx (RFC 2301) or not?

What about in the "document-format-supported" Printer Description attribute.
What the parameter value required in order to indicate that RFC 2301 was
supported?

Or was the inclusion of the parameter optional?  

If left out, could the content still be tiff/fx (RFC 2301) or not?



Carl-Uno suggests that the IFAX over IPP project (or whatever its new name
is going to be) should decide this issue and include the decision in
whatever document it produces, rather than including in it IPP/1.1.  One of
the purposes of IPP/1.1 is to get a standards track document on which the
IFAX over IPP project can base its work.

In the meantime, as a Last Call comment on the IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics
document, we still need to clarify that a mimeMediaType value can include
any number of parameters as indicated in the IANA registry entry and is not
limited only to the charset parameter (as the current text reads).
(Carl-Uno did not make that change).

I have updated our PWG server with the corresponding .doc and .pdf files as
well.  The new files are:

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/ipp-model-v11-990217-01.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/ipp-model-v11-990217-01.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/ipp-model-v11-990217-rev-01.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/ipp-model-v11-990217-rev-01.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/ipp-model-v11-990217-01.txt
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/draft-ietf-ipp-model-v11-01.txt
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/Internet-Drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-model-v11-01.tx
t


Note:  The Encoding and Transport document still refers to [ipp-mod] as
draft-ietf-protocol-v11-00.txt.  It was not updated too.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 20:45
To: ipp
Cc: Keith Moore <
Subject: IPP> MOD & PRO - IPP/1.1 Internet-Drafts posted and sent to
IETF


Carl-Uno has sent the Internet-Drafts for IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics, and
IPP/1.1 Encoding and Transport to the IETF.

I have posted the usual files on the PWG server:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/ipp-model-v11-990217.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/ipp-model-v11-990217.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/ipp-model-v11-990217-rev.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/ipp-model-v11-990217-rev.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/ipp-model-v11-990217.txt
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/draft-ietf-ipp-model-v11-00.txt
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/Internet-Drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-model-v11-00.tx
t

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/ipp-pro-990217.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/ipp-pro-990217.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/ipp-pro-990217-rev.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/ipp-pro-990217-rev.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/ipp-pro-990217.txt
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/draft-ietf-ipp-protocol-v11-00.txt
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/Internet-Drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-protocol-v11-00
.txt

The -rev files show all the changes from the IPP/1.0 November
specifications.

Tom Hastings
(310) 333-6413