Hi Don,
Sorry - I misunderstood your comment (not being able to
see the redlined MS Word source that Tom Hastings was
writing from). I agree that copying convoluted source
is undesirable. I suggest I replace the section
entirely with a reference to the appropriate sections
in RFC 2396 (Generic URI) and RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1).
I don't want to waste time with the IETF ADs because
we 'corrected' convoluted text from 'standards track'
RFCs.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 12:26 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'Hastings, Tom N'; 'IETF-IPP'
Subject: RE: IPP> URL - Last Call comments from the PWG meeting on "IPP:
IPP URL S cheme" closing on March 26, 2001
My comments preceded by <fdw>
**********************************************
* Don Wright don at lexmark.com *
* Chair, Printer Working Group *
* Chair, IEEE MSC *
* *
* Director, Alliances & Standards *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax) *
**********************************************
"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald%sharplabs.com at interlock.lexmark.com> on
03/23/2001
02:30:29 PM
To: "'Hastings, Tom N'"
<hastings%cp10.es.xerox.com at interlock.lexmark.com>,
"'IETF-IPP'" <ipp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com>
cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: RE: IPP> URL - Last Call comments from the PWG meeting on "IPP:
IPP
URL S cheme" closing on March 26, 2001
Hi folks,
Replies are imbedded below, preceded by 'ira>'.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 4:05 PM
To: 'IETF-IPP'
Subject: IPP> URL - Last Call comments from the PWG meeting on "IPP: IPP
URL S cheme" closing on March 26, 2001
I've extracted the edits that Don made at the IPP WG meeting in Tampa so
that the mailing list can see them regarding the "Internet Printing Protocol
(IPP): IPP URL Scheme" out for IPP WG Last Call closing on March 26, 2001.
These comments are being treated as Last Call comments. Send any comments
on these comments to the entire mailing list.
1. In section 4.5. IPP URL Scheme Syntax in ABNF, there are the following
statements at the end:
If a proxy receives a host name which is not a fully
qualified domain name, it MAY add its domain to the host name it
received. If a proxy receives a fully qualified domain name, the
proxy MUST NOT change the host name.
IS THIS TEXT FROM SOME OTHER DOCUMENT? SHOULD WE REFERENCE IT INSTEAD? IF
NOT, WHERE DID THIS BEHAVIOR COME FROM?
ira> Yes, this is verbatim text from RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1). I will
DELETE this paragraph, as the behavior of intermediate HTTP Proxy
servers is irrelevant to the IPP URL scheme.
--->
2. In section 4.5.2. IPP URL Comparisons, we suggest a simpler explanation
of the comparison algorithm:
When comparing two IPP URLs to decide if they match or not, an IPP
Client SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the
entire URLs, with these exceptions:
- A port that is empty or not given is equivalent to the well-known
port for that IPP URL (port 631);
- Comparisons of host names MUST be case-insensitive;
- Comparisons of scheme names MUST be case-insensitive;
- An empty 'abs_path' is equivalent to an 'abs_path' of "/".
Characters other than those in the "reserved" and "unsafe" sets (see
[RFC-2396] and [RFC-2732]) are equivalent to their ""%" HEX HEX"
encoding.
For example, the following three URIs are equivalent:
ipp://abc.com:631/~smith/printeripp://ABC.com/%7Esmith/printeripp://ABC.com:/%7esmith/printer
Would this be more clear? "All of the URL up to the 'abs_path' MUST be
case-insensitive. The 'abs_path' SHOULD be case-sensitive."
ira> Again, the above comparison rules are taken verbatim from
RFC 2616, which is derived from RFC 2396 (Generic URI). Simplicity
isn't the objective. Strict accuracy to the rules for comparison
of URLs for equality is the objective. I do NOT agree to replacing
the above with the two sentence replacement text suggested.
--->
<fdw> Copying convoluted, difficult to follow text just because it is in
an RFC does NOT make it right. We should either refer to the RFC only or
fix the convolution. My suggestion was only to replace from "...SHOULD use
a case-sensitive...." until ...scheme names MUST be case-insensitive;"
Thanks,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 15:59
To: 'IETF-IPP'
Subject: IPP> ADM - IPP WG Last Call for "Internet Printing Protocol
(IPP): IPP URL Scheme" closing on March 26, 2001
All,
This is a working group Last Call for the "Internet Printing Protocol (IPP):
IPP URL Scheme". A version of this documents has been forwarded to the
Internet
Draft directory as <draft-ietf-ipp-url-scheme-02.txt>
PDF and Word versions of the drafts are also posted at the ietf-ipp web
site:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/
The Last Call notice follows:
This is a formal request for final comments within the IETF IPP
working group for one document. The document is "Internet Printing Protocol
(IPP): IPP URL Scheme", which is being proposed for forwarding on to the
IESG for consideration as Standards Track RFC.
This is a working group product, which has been thoroughly discussed since
late 2000.
The document has undergone review and revisions during the past few months
and I believe that we now have working group consensus on its adequacy.
The document is an extension to RFC 2911.
The purpose of a working group Last Call is in the style of "speak now or
forever hold your peace" in case there are fundamental objections which have
not gotten previous or adequate discussion, or minor errors which need
correction.
Last Calls are for a minimum of 2 weeks. The period for working group
comments will close on Monday, 26 March, 2001 (US Pacific time reference),
to allow review during the upcoming IETF50 Meeting.
The relevant document is:
Title : Internet Printing Protocol (IPP): IPP URL Scheme
Author(s) : R. Herriot, I. McDonald
Filename : draft-ietf-ipp-url-scheme-02.txt
Pages : 16
Date : 14-Feb-01
This document is a product of the Internet Printing Protocol Working
Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should
be submitted to the ipp at pwg.org mailing list.
This document is intended for use in registering the "ipp" URL scheme
with IANA and fully conforms to the requirements in [RFC-2717]. This
document defines the "ipp" URL (Uniform Resource Locator) scheme for
specifying the location of an IPP Printer, IPP Job, or other IPP
object (defined in some future version of IPP) which implements the
IPP/1.1 Model [RFC-2911] and the IPP/1.1 Protocol encoding over HTTP
[RFC-2910] or any later version of IPP. The intended usage of the
"ipp" URL scheme is COMMON.
The IPP URL scheme defined in this document is based on the ABNF for
the HTTP URL scheme defined in HTTP/1.1 [RFC-2616], which is derived
from the URI Generic Syntax [RFC-2396] and further updated by
[RFC-2732] and [RFC-2373] (for IPv6 addresses in URLs). An IPP URL
is transformed into an HTTP URL according to the rules specified in
section 5 of the IPP/1.1 Protocol [RFC-2910].
This document is a product of the Internet Printing Protocol Working
Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should
be submitted to the ipp at pwg.org mailing list.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-url-scheme-02.txt
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
"get draft-ietf-ipp-url-scheme-02.txt".
A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
Send a message to:
mailserv at ietf.org.
In the body type:
"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-url-scheme-02.txt".
NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this
feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers
exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
how to manipulate these messages.
Sincerely,
Carl-Uno Manros
Chair of IETF IPP WG
Carl-Uno Manros
Manager, Print Services
Xerox Architecture Center - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros at cp10.es.xerox.com