Hello IPP Group,
In my study of the IPP Event Notification Specification
(draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec-06.txt), I found a few problems that probably should be
fixed before the official RFC is created.
1) 5.3 Table 1 lists "notify-natural-languages", which, according to the rest of
the spec, should be in the singular.
2) In 11.2.3.2, where it describes the Unsupported Attributes group of the
Get-Subscription-Attributes reply, it states:
Group 2: Unsupported Attributes
See [RFC2911] section 3.1.7 for details on returning
Unsupported Attributes.
The response NEED NOT contain the "requested-attributes"
operation attribute with any supplied values (attribute
keywords) that were requested by the client but are not
supported by the Printer. If the Printer does return
unsupported attributes referenced in the "requested-attributes"
operation attribute and that attribute included group names,
such as 'all', the unsupported attributes MUST NOT include
attributes described in the standard but not supported by the
implementation.
My guess is that the last sentence should read:
If the Printer does return unsupported attributes referenced in the
"requested-attributes" operation attribute, it MUST include only
unsupported attributes that are in the "requested-attributes"
operation attribute, and not any that are implied by any attribute
group name in the "requested-attributes" operation attribute.
What I think the spec currently says is that if the printer does return
unsupported attributes referenced in the "requested-attributes" operation
attribute, then unsupported attributes that appear in that attribute are treated
differently depending on if there are any attribute group names also in that
attribute or not. I'm sure that's not what is wanted.
Please note that RFC 2911 section 3.2.5.2 contains the same ambiguous wording.
3) 5.2, line 3, says: "These rules for are similar...". Looks like a typo, and
either "for" should be removed, or what it is for should follow "for".
4) 11.1.3, last paragraph, says "must EITHER" but only lists one option, so that
should probably be changed to just "MUST".
I would appreciate it if anyone who knows the correct meaning of the paragraph
regarding unsupported attributes in 11.2.3.2 (my point 2 above) would please let
me know.
Regards,
Marty Joel