[IPP] New "Initial Draft" of IPP Job and Printer Extensions Set 2 v2 (JPS2v2) posted

[IPP] New "Initial Draft" of IPP Job and Printer Extensions Set 2 v2 (JPS2v2) posted

Michael Sweet msweet at apple.com
Thu Aug 30 18:47:13 UTC 2018


Responses are inline below...

> On Aug 29, 2018, at 11:58 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & Standards Architect) <smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed feedback! A few questions below - all that don't have questions have been resolved in my new local copy.
> ...
>> - Section 8.1: make section 8.2 Hold-Job: job-hold-until-time
> I think it would read better if it was "8.2 Hold-Job operation" and then the 8.2.1 heading listing the name of "job-hold-until-time"

Generally we've been using the format "Operation-Name: attribute[, ..., attribute" in recent specs.  All of the 8.x subsections are operations so I don't think we need to say "operation" specifically.

>> - Section 8.2: make section 8.3 Set-Job-Attributes: job-delay-output-until, job-delay-output-until-time, job-hold-until-time
> I think it would read better if it was "8.3 Set-Job-Attributes operation" and then the 8.3.x headings listing the names of the various attributes.

Again, that's not how we've done it before, mainly because the separate third-level headings just make the spec wordier as you repeat everything N times.  Alternately maybe break this into two 8.x sections:

    8.3 Set-Job-Attributes: job-delay-output-until, job-delay-output-until-time


    8.4 Set-Job-Attributes: job-hold-until-time

since job-hold-until[-time] and job-delay-output-until[-time] have different semantics???

>> - Section 10.11 should be made a subsection of job-delay-output-until-time
>> - Section 10.13 should be made a subsection of job-hold-until-time
>> - Section 10.35 should be made a subsection of save-info
>> - Section 10.40 should be made a subsection of save-name
> I think the reader would be more likely to look for these in the Printer Description attributes section, but I moved them to where you recommended.

It just seems strange to have a heading "why there is no xxx-default attribute" rather than just omitting it from the list and adding a note or two where "xxx" is defined.

In other specs we have included a table of Job Template attributes with the corresponding default and supported values attributes - if we include that then we can add a note there stating there is no default value because it doesn't make sense.

>> - Section 11: New Values for Existing Attributes (drop semantics here)
>> - Section 11.1: Drop "Printer Description attribute" from title
>> - Section 11.2: Just "which-jobs (type2 keyword)" - which-jobs-supported inherits everything from which-jobs
>> - Section 11.3: Drop "Job Description attribute" from title
>> - Section 11.3.x: Move to corresponding Job Template attribute definitions
> I am not clear on what you are recommending that I do about these...

For the definition of job-hold-until-time, note that Printer MUST add the 'job-hold-until-specified' keyword to "job-state-reasons" when the "job-hold-until-time" is specified.

Similarly, for "job-save-disposition", the discussion of state keywords belongs in the definition of that attribute.

In short, the "new values" section is just for listing new values and their meanings, not for defining or amending semantics for their use with other operations/attributes.

>> - Section 11.4: Delete (part of MSN2)
>> - Section 11.5: Move to section 5.3 Job Template attributes under a new "media-col (collection) Extension" section.
>> - Section 12: Just "IANA Considerations", we don't need the Semantic Model registration stuff anymore
>> - Section 12: Should come after section 14 (Security Considerations)
>> - Section 12.1: Attribute Registrations
>> - Bring back the "Conformance Requirements" section (missing!) - it should go before the Internationalization Considerations section
> How did I drop that one?  :p
>> - Section 13: Drop UTR20 (not needed for IPP and no longer being maintained by the Unicode Consortium...) and make sure you don't lose the advisory text from the current WD template - UTR17, UTR23, and UTR33 are informational (non-normative) so the SHOULD is not appropriate.
> I copied over what is in the template

OK, maybe you copied before I had updated the template?

>> - Section 14: Use the standard boilerplate text for now. We'll probably want to add more once we settle on the final content.
> I copied in what is in the template. (BTW, the template has an indented "Implementations of this specification..." paragraph that should be outdented.

Yeah, I noticed that while I was reviewing the differences between the two. :)

Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer

More information about the ipp mailing list