[IPP] Question re: RFC 8011 Section 7.2 Attribute Extensibility

[IPP] Question re: RFC 8011 Section 7.2 Attribute Extensibility

Michael Sweet msweet at msweet.org
Sun Feb 11 01:09:23 UTC 2024


Smith,

The disadvantage of doing vendor prefixes on all attributes, member attributes, and values is that it makes it harder to convert to a standard implementation.

So for a new attribute, prefix the attribute, e.g.:

    smiNNN-foo (type2 keyword)
    smiNNN-foo-default (type2 keyword)
    smiNNN-foo-supported (1setOf type2 keyword)

while the values are not prefixed:

    none
    bar
    baz

For a new member attribute, the member attribute and the supported attribute are prefixed:

    media-col (collection)
      smiNNN-media-scent (type2 keyword)

    smiNNN-media-scent-supported (1setOf type2 keyword)

For a new collection attribute, prefix the top-level attributes but not the member attributes:

    smiNNN-foo-col (collection)
      foo-id (integer)
      bar (type2 keyword)

    smiNNN-bar-supported (1setOf type2 keyword)
    smiNNN-foo-col-default (collection)
    smiNNN-foo-col-supported (1setOf keyword)
    smiNNN-foo-id-supported (rangeOfInteger)


On Feb 10, 2024, at 3:00 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & IPP Standards) <smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Mike and Chris, 
> 
> Since this is a convention and not something that is normatively defined or validated, I suppose the vendor can do what it wants.
> 
> But what about the "xxx-supported" / "xxx-default" attributes that correspond to the member attributes in the collection? 
> 
> If at HP I define:
> 
> smi11-whatever-col (collection)
>   whatever-number (integer)
>   whatever-type (type2 keyword)
> 
> so that I can make:
> 
> smi11-whatever-col = {
>   whatever-number = 42
>   whatever-type = whale
> }
> 
> there could likely be these accompanying attribute definitions:
> 
> whatever-number-supported (rangeOfInteger)
> whatever-number-default (integer)
> whatever-type-supported (1setOf type2 keyword)
> whatever-type-default (type2 keyword)
> 
> Is that how we want this to be? Or would it be better like so:
> 
> smi11-whatever-col (collection)
>   smi11-whatever-number (integer)
>   smi11-whatever-type (type2 keyword)
> 
> and then
> 
> smi11-whatever-number-supported (rangeOfInteger)
> smi11-whatever-number-default (integer)
> smi11-whatever-type-supported (1setOf type2 keyword)
> smi11-whatever-type-default (type2 keyword)

________________________
Michael Sweet



More information about the ipp mailing list