I'm keeping track of all comments on the RFC 2910 and 2911 for the next time
we publish it. So please send any such comments as Harry has done to the
IPP DL and I'll acknowledge and incorporate into my copy for next
publication.
In order to avoid indentation errors next time with the RFC editor, I'm
going to include the .3 inch indentation in the .doc file for the
proportional text versions as well. Then whenever we produce the I-D in
.txt form, it will be conforming to the IETF formatting requirements.
Thanks,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 17:08
To: Harry Lewis
Cc: ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> Editorial - IPP Model - Print-Job Attribute groups
[RFC 2911]
Harry,
Yes, I agree that Group 3 is the data, and is not attributes, so it would
have been better to have just deleted the "of attributes" phrase, so it
would have read:
The following groups are supplied as part of the Print-Job Request:
Group 1: Operation Attributes
Group 2: Job Template Attributes
Group 3: Document Content
About your comment on the indentation, I agree that the indentation in the
RFC 2911 .txt version is mis-leading. The .txt file that we published as
the INTERNET-DRAFT had the text you refer to at the left margin. The RFC
editor moved all text, except headers, right 3 spaces. However, for this
paragraph, they moved it right 6 spaces, instead of 3, and we (I) missed
that in proof-reading the .txt from the RFC Editor.
Regrettably under IETF rules, once an RFC is published, it cannot be
corrected (except to publish a new RFC with a new number that obsoletes or
updates a previously published RFC).
Sorry,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 07:31
To: hastings
Cc: ipp@pwg.org
Subject: IPP> Editorial - IPP Model - Print-Job Attribute groups
Tom, I'm reading RFC2911 (IPP Model). In section 3.2.1.1 Print-Job
Request, something seems less than coherent. Basically, it reads... "The
following groups of attributes are supplied as part of the Print-Job
Request:
Group 1: Operation Attributes
Group 2: Job Template Attributes
Group 3: Document Content
Is it correct to refer to Document Content as an attribute in this manner?
Also, the continuation of 3.2.1.1 after the first sentence in "Group 3"
(The client MUST supply the document data to be processed)... should not
be indented under the "Group 3" sub-heading as it appears to summarize the
entire section (3.2.1.1).
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 09 2001 - 20:12:45 EST