Greetings,
The IPP Implementor’s Guide v2 has a number of comments identifying issues that need to be resolved, some of which require discussion. I wanted to raise each topic in its own email thread to the reflector rather than relying on members of the WG finding on their own, or raising them in the meeting and hoping attendees can develop a position on the fly.
Topic #1: Normative Statements in section 4
In the minutes from “ippv2-concall-minutes-20140428.pdf” :
http://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-concall-minutes-20140428.pdf
Item 5d says “4.x: Remove any hidden conformance requirements for Printers - basically this document is about recommendations for existing standards, which define those conformance requirements”. I’m not sure that I agree with this, because that seems to remove any demand to qualitatively evaluate the different options in the subsections of section 4. I think it isn’t a question of “pass / fail” but rather evaluation using the qualitative labels in section 4. I know this makes section 4 unique when compared with the typical conventions of using RFC 2119 normative language and generating conformance requirements and test plans from that. But I pretty strongly believe an IPP Implementor’s Guide v2 test suite needs to evaluate Clients and Printers for their quality.
Thoughts?
Smith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20141208/05b032d8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4956 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20141208/05b032d8/attachment.p7s>