[IPP] Erratum on RFC 8011 : 'document-attributes-group' not mentioned in Send-Document, etc.

[IPP] Erratum on RFC 8011 : 'document-attributes-group' not mentioned in Send-Document, etc.

Ira McDonald blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Mon Mar 12 18:24:57 UTC 2018


I agree with Mike.  Document object has the complexity of the Job object
plus bells and whistles.
Subscription object covering multiple targets (System, Printer, Job,
Document) is complex.

Even IPP/2.0 (w/ 2.1 and 2.2) is just brief lists of required attributes
and operations for three levels
of IPP Printer capabilities (and no longer even close to all inclusive).

RFCs 8010/8011 are meant to be strictly cleanups of RFCs 2910/2911 - the
universe of IPP (over
30 IETF and PWG specs) is too broad to cover in one spec, without major

- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Jan-April: 579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
May-Dec: PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:

> Smith,
> > On Mar 12, 2018, at 1:16 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & Standards
> Architec) <smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Mar 9, 2018, at 2:54 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Smith,
> >>
> >> PWG 5100.5 is an extension to IPP/1.1 that defines the Document object,
> the document-attributes-tag (group) value, and the amended semantics for
> the Send-Document and Send-URI operations.  None of that was part of the
> core IPP/1.1 (which is what RFC 8011 defines) and we've historically been
> conservative about requiring support for the Document object extension -
> right now only IPP/2.2 and IPP INFRA require it and most implementations
> only support a single document per job anyways...
> >
> > I understand that we cannot add additional normative requirements. I was
> just thinking that, if the "document group" were mentioned even in passing
> as an optional group in 8011, with a reference to PWG 5100.5, that would
> help with the "cross referencing" thing.
> We also have the Subscription object and its associated attribute group
> that can be included in Job Creation operations but which we don't say
> anything about (beyond a reference in the introduction)...
> I think the last thing we want to do is One Spec to Rule Them All™.  And
> honestly I don't think that mentioning other attribute groups without
> providing any details will be all that useful, especially for something as
> complicated as the Document object extension.
> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
> ipp at pwg.org
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20180312/364dbd70/attachment.html>

More information about the ipp mailing list