[IPP] IPP/2.0 SE collected PWG Last Call comments

[IPP] IPP/2.0 SE collected PWG Last Call comments

Ira McDonald blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Mon Nov 8 17:55:00 UTC 2010


For review during today's IPP WG meeting, if time allows, below are the
PWG Last Call comments received on IPP/2.0 Second Edition.

- Ira (Co-editor of IPP/2.0 SE)


Gail Giansiracusa <Gail.Giansiracusa at ktd-kyocera.com> Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at
8:43 PM
To: ipp at pwg.org

Hi All,

Just a few editorial comments...

Section 4.1:
- RFC2246 is not listed in this section but it is listed in Table 1 as

Section 4.2:
- RFC4346 is listed in Section 4.1 but not again in 4.2 even though it is
listed in Table 1 as
RECOMMENDED for both v2.0 and v2.1 (and v2.2). I would suggest that RFC4346
be listed
again in 4.2. (RECOMMENDED RFC5107.2 is listed in section 4.1 and again in
section 4.2.)
- RFC2246 is not listed in this section but is listed in Table 1 as

Section 4.3:
- RFC5100.7 is already listed as REQUIRED in 4.2. Why is listed again here?
It should be
pulled in by default from line 334 "An IPP/2.2 printer MUST support the IETF
or PWG
specifications defined for IPP/2.1 plus the following"
- I would suggest that RFC4346 be listed again in 4.3 (Still Recommended)
- RFC2246 is not listed in this section but is listed in Table 1 as

Section 6.2:
- Note 7 is not indented.
RFC5100.7 is stated as required in section 4.2 and Table 1. However, there
are at least two
attributes, "document-name-supplied" and "document-format-supplied" which
in RFC5100.7 but not listed in Table 8. They are listed in Table 9.
So, what does "MUST support" mean in Sections 4.1 thru 4.3?

Gail Giansiracusa
Kyocera Mita
(408) 246 2778


Jerry Thrasher <thrasher at lexmark.com> Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:06 AM
To: ipp at pwg.org

correcting the subject line (document date is Sept. 26, 2010)

----- Forwarded by Jerry Thrasher/Lexmark on 10/29/2010 10:06 AM -----
thrasher at lexmark.com
10/29/2010 10:05 AM
To <ipp at pwg.org>
Subject [IPP] Lexmark has reviewed IPP 2.1 SE and has the following comment

line 184..185.....This sentence needs to be reworded, suggest (.....more
supplies such as
paper and toner, and have a larger memory capacity that the other classes.)


Mac.Matsuda at brother.com <Mac.Matsuda at brother.com> Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:16
To: ipp at pwg.org

Dear all,

We have just a comment as below.

Section 6.2

We suppose these two attributes are basically the same resource.

Our recommendation is to have some guide line on how to use or change the
Printer-resolution attributes as an option.

Mac Matsuda
Brother International Corp. USA
mailto:mac.matsuda at brother.com
Tel:1-908-575-3734/ Cell:1-908-906-1312


Nancy.Chen at okidata.com <Nancy.Chen at okidata.com> Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:55 AM
To: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>

Hi Ira,

I will vote yes, but would you please take a look at the spec on line 652,
where the link
should belong to the previous line and this line should begin with a new
reference for
"[PWG5100.9]", which currently stuck at the end of the link to the previous



William Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net> Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:06 PM
To: ipp at pwg.org


Sorry about these comments on IPP Version 2.0 Second Edition coming after
PWG last call, but I have just been made aware of them. They are strictly
editorial and I request that they be considered with the last call comments
next Monday. The comments come from people looking at this document afresh,
un-influenced by having looked at this stuff for so long. Although I
understand that many of the objections are to things intentionally done as
they are to parallel the first edition, I believe that the observations have
merit in that they reflect what may be confusing to implementers.


1. Section 5:

Section 5 Heading, the subsections and the tables 3, 4, and 5 listing the
conformance requirements for the operations in IPP/2.0, IPP/2.1 and IPP/2.2
are all labeled "Required Operations in...". However they also include
Recommended and Optional operations. This is confusing. Perhaps re-labeling
Sections and tables (other than Table 2) "IPP/XXX Conformance Requirements-
Operations" might be clearer?

2. Section 6:

In a similar way, Section 6 Heading, subheadings, tables (other than Table
6) and introductory paragraph all refer to "Required Attributes" when in
fact some recommended and optional attributes are also included and
referenced in notes. It is understood that may reflect a desire to explain
why the attribute is not required, but to have a table labeled Required
Attributes which contains attributes which are recommended or optional was
found confusing. I suggest that the "Required" table contain just Required
attributes. If it is necessary to explain why some attributes are not
required perhaps a separate table or just a separate paragraph somewhere
else in the document could identify these attributes and the rational.

2. Section 6.1:

Although the text in this section and in the subsequent sections does
explicitly mention that the attributes included in table 6 are required in
IPP/2.0,/2.1 and /2.2, the subsection heading "Original Required IPP/1.1
Attributes" might not call enough attention to the fact that these are
IPP/2.x required attributes as well. Perhaps re-labeling the subsection
"Original Required IPP/1.1 Attributes also Required for IPP/2.0,/2.1 and
/2.2", something of that sort would help.

3. Section 6.3:

The printer-alert and printer-alert-description attributes are the only
entries with conformance changes between versions not mentioned in the
notes. For clarity, this section should include a note about the status
change from table 7.

Notes 2 and 4 in section 6.4 already do this for the same change to other
attributes between tables 8 and 9.

4. Section 6.3:

The media-col, media-col-default and media-col-supported entries in table 8
all refer to note 1, but the note only describes the media-col entry.

5. Section 6.3:

It may just be me, but I think it might help to have some explanation of
notes 1 & 2, which state that the collection but not all members of the
collection are required.

6. Table 8

The proof-print and which-jobs-supported attribute entries in the table
incorrectly refer to note 3 instead of the actual reference in note 4.


Bill Wagner


This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20101108/edff4e04/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ipp mailing list