From: Hastings, Tom N (Tom.Hastings@XEROX.COM)
Date: Wed Mar 05 2008 - 13:18:02 EST
Ira,
The problem that I have with your view that the IPPv2 Profiles just
lists IPP Standards is that most of the additional IPP standards define
additional operations, attributes, and values which are all OPTIONAL to
support. In other words, they are just shopping lists of operations or
attributes (and attribute values).
For example, here is the abstract from RFC 3998: Job and Printer
Administrative Operations:
This document specifies the following 16 additional OPTIONAL system
administration operations for use with the Internet Printing
Protocol/1.1 (IPP) [RFC2910, RFC2911], plus a few associated attributes,
values, and status codes and using the IPP Printer object to manage
printer fan-out and fan-in.
As another example, here is the abstract from IEEE-ISTO PWG 5100.7-2003:
Standard for The Internet Printing Protocol (IPP): Job Extensions
Abstract: This IPP specification extends the Job semantics of the IPP
Model and Semantics [rfc2911] object model. This specification defines
some new Operation attributes for use in Job Creation and Document
Creation operations. The Printer copies these Operation attributes to
the corresponding Job Description attributes, which the clients may
query. The Document Creation Operation attributes describe the Document
Content and permit the Printer to reject requests that it cannot process
correctly. Some corresponding "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported" Printer
attributes are defined. This specification defines some Job Template
attributes that apply to a multi-document Job as a whole and the
"output-device" Job Template attribute that can apply to Documents and
to Sheets as well as Jobs. This specification also defines some
additional values for the "job-state-reasons" Job Description attribute.
Each of the attributes defined in this specification are independent of
each other and are OPTIONAL for a Printer to support.
All of the attributes defined are OPTIONAL for a Printer to support!
My recollection is that most of the extension IPP standards are like
this. Thus I think it would really help if each profile listed the
operations and attributes (any maybe attribute values) that are
MANDATORY, CONDITIONALLY MANDATORY (with their condition), and
OPTIONAL).
Back to my comment on the Statement of Work:
The ISSUE with the Statement of Work is to agree on what the undefined
term: "feature". One interpretation (mine) is that each operation is a
"feature" and each attribute is a "feature". Whether an attribute value
is also a feature needs to be clarified. Without such an agreement on
what the term "feature" is, I think that people will have widely
differing understandings on what the IPPv2 project is about.
BTW, I like the idea of the IPPv2 project NOT trying to re-write,
clarify, or augment, the published standards. I'm just questioning the
value of having a profile that points to set of IPP standards where each
IPP standard just contains a list of operations or attributes that are
all OPTIONAL.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 19:42
To: Hastings, Tom N; Ira McDonald
Cc: Ron.Bergman@ricoh-usa.com; ipp@pwg.org
Subject: Re: IPP> IPPv2 Statement Of Work Update
Hi Tom,
My two cents - these profiles (i.e., version 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, etc.) should
ONLY
make whole IPP standards specs (IETF or PWG) mandatory, conditionally
mandatory, or optional.
Although there has been speculation that individual operations (but NOT
attributes) might be raised in requirements level from their original
specs,
I'm opposed to doing so.
The sole function of the IPP/2.x effort should be simply to encourage
more
widespread implementation of the many IPP extensions (a set of content
much larger than the entire original IPP/1.1 protocol). And to simplify
the
description of such higher implementation functionality for end users.
Changing specific requirements levels *within* particular IPP specs is a
slippery slope that would destroy the IPP/2.x effort (and violate the
PWG
Process/2.0 rules).
Bear in mind that the PWG Process/2.0 is much more rigorous than past
PWG practice. Actual prototypes are REQUIRED before a document can
even enter PWG Last Call, much less be adopted. It remains to be seen
if this can be achieved for IPP/2.x.
Cheers,
- Ira
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Hastings, Tom N <Tom.Hastings@xerox.com>
wrote:
> The statement of work says:
>
> * OBJ-1 Include a reference to all IPP Standards Track documents,
> starting from version 1.1.
> * OBJ-2 All current IPP features are to be included as a requirement
or
> an option.
> * OBJ-3 All features are to be classified as Mandatory,
Conditionally
> Mandatory, or Optional.
>
> What is a "feature"? What is the level of granularity of a feature?
An
> operation, an object, an attribute, or an attribute value?
>
> In other words, at what level of detail will the "Mandatory",
> "Conditionally Mandatory" or "Optional" be specified at: an
operation,
> an object, an attribute, or an attribute value?
>
> The PWG Semantic model lists all of the operations, objects,
attributes,
> and values (though spelled "funny"), along with the documents in
which
> they are defined, if that is a help is compiling a profile template.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of
> Ron.Bergman@ricoh-usa.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 09:56
> To: ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: IPP> IPPv2 Statement Of Work Update
>
>
> The IPPv2 Charter has been converted into a Statement of Work.
>
> Send any comments to the mail list.
>
>
>
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/ippv2-docs/wd-ippv2-statement-of-work-2008
> 0221.pdf
> (.doc)
>
>
>
>
-- Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Blue Roof Music/High North Inc email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com winter: 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 summer: PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 05 2008 - 13:18:43 EST