FWIW, filed this errata based on the consensus that multiple-document-handling is the attribute to use for collated copies, so 2911 needs a minor correction...
Begin forwarded message:
> From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org>
> Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2911 (3072)
> Date: January 4, 2012 9:57:41 AM PST
> To: sisaacson at novell.com, tom.hastings at alum.mit.edu, robert.herriot at pahv.xerox.com, debryro at uvsc.edu, papowell at astart.com, presnick at qualcomm.com, stpeter at stpeter.im, carl at manros.com> Cc: msweet at apple.com, rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2911,
> "Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model and Semantics".
>> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
>http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2911&eid=3072>> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com>
>> Section: 4.2.4
>> Original Text
> -------------
> This attribute is relevant only if a job consists of two or more
> documents. This attribute MUST be supported with at least one value
>>> Corrected Text
> --------------
> This attribute is relevant to jobs consisting of one or more
> documents. This attribute MUST be supported with at least one value
>>> Notes
> -----
> Per consensus of the IPP working group in the Printer Working Group, the "multiple-document-handling" attribute *is* applicable to single-document jobs since it is the only common attribute that can be used to request copy collation.
>> The other collation attribute ("sheet-collate" from RFC3381])interacts with "multiple-document-handling" in some non-obvious ways and requires clients and printers to support two different attributes for simple collation. The "sheet-collate" attribute also does not address how finishing options are applied to copies while "multiple-document-handling" does.
>> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>> --------------------------------------
> RFC2911 (draft-ietf-ipp-model-v11-07)
> --------------------------------------
> Title : Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model and Semantics
> Publication Date : September 2000
> Author(s) : T. Hastings, Ed., R. Herriot, R. deBry, S. Isaacson, P. Powell
> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source : Internet Printing Protocol
> Area : Applications
> Stream : IETF
> Verifying Party : IESG
_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
--
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/20120104/053f2440/attachment-0001.html>