Hi Smith,
AFTER we move RFC 8010/8011 to full Internet Standard, the RFC Editor has a
process
to attach errata notes to published RFCs (which doesn't commit anyone to
ever revise the
original RFC). I suggest we defer this edit until then, OK?
Cheers,
- 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
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
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 Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
> Smith,
>> I agree in principle with the editorial changes, however making that sort
> of change is probably beyond what current IETF process would allow for
> simply updating the status of those RFCs to Internet Standard, which means
> going through another round of updates. I'm not so keen on *that* - it took
> us long enough to get 2910/2911 updated, and doing an update to 8010/8011
> will likely push more changes on us thanks to the work being done on
> updating the "HTTP-based Protocols" BCP.
>>> > On Apr 13, 2018, at 3:31 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & Standards
> Architec) <smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I've recently been asked by someone working on a new IPP client
> implementation about the meaning of RFC 8010 section 3.3 (
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8010#section-3.3), which says:
> >
> > Table 1 maps the Model group name to value of the "begin-attribute-
> > group-tag" field:
> >
> > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
> > | Model Document | "begin-attribute-group-tag" field values |
> > | Group | |
> > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
> > | Operation | "operations-attributes-tag" |
> > | Attributes | |
> > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
> > | Job Template | "job-attributes-tag" |
> > | Attributes | |
> > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
> > | Job Object | "job-attributes-tag" |
> > | Attributes | |
> > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
> > | Unsupported | "unsupported-attributes-tag" |
> > | Attributes | |
> > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
> > |
> > Requested | (Get-Job-Attributes) "job-attributes-tag"
> > |
> > |
> > Attributes
> > | |
> > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
> > |
> > Requested | (Get-Printer-Attributes)"printer-attributes-tag"
> > |
> > |
> > Attributes
> > | |
> > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
> > | Document | in a special position at the end of the message |
> > | Content | as described in
> > Section 3.1.1
> > . |
> > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
> >
> > Table 1: Group Values
> >
> > For each operation request and response, the Model prescribes the
> > required and optional attribute groups, along with their order.
> > Within each attribute group, the Model prescribes the required and
> > optional attributes, along with their order.
> >
> >
> >
> > After reading RFC 8011 more closely, "Requested Attributes
> (Get-Job-Attributes)" seems to mean that the Get-Job-Attributes response
> will list the set of requested attributes in the group with the
> "job-attributes-tag", and "Requested Attributes (Get-Printer-Attributes)"
> means the Get-Printer-Attributes response will list the set of requested
> attributes in the group with the "printer-attributes-tag". But that
> required a bit of back-and-forth between 8010 and 8011. If there is a
> mechanism to report errata to an RFC, I'd like to request that these rows
> be modified to read more like so:
> >
> > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
> > |
> > Requested | "job-attributes-tag"
> > |
> > |
> > Attributes | (Get-Job-Attributes operation response) |
> > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
> > |
> > Requested | "printer-attributes-tag"
> > |
> > |
> > Attributes | (Get-Printer-Attributes operation response)
> > |
> > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
> >
> >
> > Thoughts? Maybe these kinds of editorial errata can be rolled in as part
> of their move to full Internet Standard?
> >
> > Smith
> >
> > /**
> > Smith Kennedy
> > Wireless & Standards Architect - IPG-PPS
> > Standards - IEEE ISTO PWG / Bluetooth SIG / Wi-Fi Alliance / NFC
> Forum / USB-IF
> > Chair, IEEE ISTO Printer Working Group
> > HP Inc.
> > */
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ipp mailing list
> > ipp at pwg.org> > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>> _________________________________________________________
> 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/20180414/97fbfdc1/attachment.html>