Review based on April 20,2012 ; clean PDF file.
Page 10, line 309; Reword "large attributes" to attributes with large
volumes of data...
Page 14, line 435 and 440; the e.g. needs a comma after in both places
page 21, line 659; the i.e. needs a comma after
page 31, line 898 and 915; the fully qualified name of RFC4122 doesn't need
to be stated every time it's referenced, just the first time
unfortunately the first time it's referenced is on page 26, line 788; where
it's NOT fully qualified. (also line 962)
page 33, line 963; given that any printer that supports this must support a
MAX number of octets of at least 255, shouldn't the range allowance
for this attribute be (integer(255;1024))? Probably should include a
discussion of the number vs the password lengths possible and possibly even
a discussion of appropriate length for the client to require.
page 33, line 965; cross reference should be to 5.1.2 not 5.1.1.
page 35, line 984; this attribute is listed a recommended but then list a
case where it's required.....doesn't this end up as some sort if
conditionally required state? This occurs frequently throughout the
document.
page 39, line 1113; this paragraph needs to be prefaced with "If this
attribute is supported then this action must happen on power-up".
page 46 line 1333; The ABNF cross reference in the back is for [STD68] but
here it's listed by its RFC #.. I actually prefer the RFC #
instead of [STD68].
page 46, line 1333; The figure reference is incorrect, should be Figure 3,
not Y.
page 49, line 1453; Here ABNF is referenced by [STD68], matches the
reference in the back but I prefere the RFC #.
page 52, line 1536; The e.g. needs a comma.
page 54, line 1599; The reference to section 5.1.5 should be to 5.1.6.
page 55; incorrect references to section 5.1.X in line
1605,1621,1625,1630,1634; and 1646 on next page.
page 57, line 1697; The e.g. needs a comma.
page 59, table 11; Bad references to section 5.1.X in two places.
page 67, line 1869; See ABNF-related comments previously.
page 68, line 1915; the example for the number of impressions/pages etc
might be more readable if there was a table or figure along with it,
as it's a pretty complex situation.
page 71; Bad references to section 5.1.X in line 1961,1969,1976,....but
correct in 1989, also incorrect on page 72, line 1997,2008,2009,2010
2019 and line 2039 on page 73.
page 72, line 2016; Section 7.2 of what...doesn't seem to point to this
document.
*Jerry Thrasher
*Senior Engineer, WW Corporate Standards
Lexmark International Inc.
H0D1314/035-3, 740 West New Circle Rd, Lexington Ky 40550
Office: +1 859 825 4056 Fax: +1 859 232 6613
thrasher(at)lexmark(dot)com
--
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/20120515/60111f8a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
Page 10, line 309; Reword "large attributes" to attributes with large volumes of data...
Page 14, line 435 and 440; the e.g. needs a comma after in both places
page 21, line 659; the i.e. needs a comma after
page 31, line 898 and 915; the fully qualified name of RFC4122 doesn't need to be stated every time it's referenced, just the first time
unfortunately the first time it's referenced is on page 26, line 788; where it's NOT fully qualified. (also line 962)
page 33, line 963; given that any printer that supports this must support a MAX number of octets of at least 255, shouldn't the range allowance
for this attribute be (integer(255;1024))? Probably should include a discussion of the number vs the password lengths possible and possibly even
a discussion of appropriate length for the client to require.
page 33, line 965; cross reference should be to 5.1.2 not 5.1.1.
page 35, line 984; this attribute is listed a recommended but then list a case where it's required.....doesn't this end up as some sort if
conditionally required state? This occurs frequently throughout the document.
page 39, line 1113; this paragraph needs to be prefaced with "If this attribute is supported then this action must happen on power-up".
page 46 line 1333; The ABNF cross reference in the back is for [STD68] but here it's listed by its RFC #.. I actually prefer the RFC #
instead of [STD68].
page 46, line 1333; The figure reference is incorrect, should be Figure 3, not Y.
page 49, line 1453; Here ABNF is referenced by [STD68], matches the reference in the back but I prefere the RFC #.
page 52, line 1536; The e.g. needs a comma.
page 54, line 1599; The reference to section 5.1.5 should be to 5.1.6.
page 55; incorrect references to section 5.1.X in line 1605,1621,1625,1630,1634; and 1646 on next page.
page 57, line 1697; The e.g. needs a comma.
page 59, table 11; Bad references to section 5.1.X in two places.
page 67, line 1869; See ABNF-related comments previously.
page 68, line 1915; the example for the number of impressions/pages etc might be more readable if there was a table or figure along with it,
as it's a pretty complex situation.
page 71; Bad references to section 5.1.X in line 1961,1969,1976,....but correct in 1989, also incorrect on page 72, line 1997,2008,2009,2010
2019 and line 2039 on page 73.
page 72, line 2016; Section 7.2 of what...doesn't seem to point to this document.