IPP Mail Archive: IPP> RE: FW: LDAP Printer schema last call

IPP> RE: FW: LDAP Printer schema last call comments

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Thu Jul 13 2000 - 21:15:02 EDT

  • Next message: kugler@us.ibm.com: "Re: IPP> OPS - Redirect-Job (a ka Move-Job) included in Job and Printer Admin (Set2) spec"

    Hi Terry,

    Thanks for the instant reply - I've forwarded your note
    to the IETF IPP WG list, so the other reviewers see it.

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald, co-editor of LDAP Printer Schema

    PS - I also copied Pat Fleming and Harry Lewis (IBM,
    both co-editors).

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Terry Lambert [mailto:terry@whistle.com]
    Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 6:05 PM
    To: McDonald, Ira
    Cc: 'srvloc@srvloc.org'
    Subject: Re: FW: LDAP Printer schema last call comments

    McDonald, Ira wrote:
    > FYI - some IBM folks found some bugs in their review of the
    > LDAP printer schema I-D.

    [ ... ]

    > 2. Attributes definitions that define possible values that
    > are keywords should not have a substring matching rule
    > since the keywords don't contain patterns of characters
    > suitable for substring searches. Specifically SUBSTR
    > caseIgnoreSubstringMatch should be removed from the
    > attribute definitions in the following sections of this
    > document: 4.4, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.16, 4.19, 4.21,
    > 4.22, 4.25, 4.31, 4.32, 4.33.

    I disagree, in the following cases:

    4.4 I want to search for "fr-ca" or "fr-fr"; the language
            distinction following the hyphen has no bearing on
            printing (unless the printer does spell/grammer
            chacking 8-)), so "fr-*" is reasonable.

    4.13 Same as 4.4.

    4.19 "staple*" or "staple-*-left" (just staple the thing,
            already!)

    It's not clear where "postscript-level-*" would fit, if
    anywhere.

    -- Terry Lambert
    -- Whistle Communications, Inc., an I.B.M. Company
    -- terry@whistle.com
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is formal notice under California Assembly Bill 1629, enacted
    9/26/98 that any UCE sent to my email address will be billed $50
    per incident to the legally allowed maximum of $25,000.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 13 2000 - 21:23:34 EDT