I'm just about ready to publish the Notification Spec again, and have found
the following issues. If we could resolve them (except Issue 02) on the
mailing list and discuss at tomorrow's IPP telecon, I can update before
making the Internet-Draft that we want to send out for IPP WG Last Call:
ISSUE 01 - Ok to include the notification delivery scheme names 'ipp:',
'indp:', 'mailto:', and 'snmp:' that are in progress as example values of
the "notify-recipient" (uri) attribute?
ISSUE 02 - Once a number of delivery solutions have been developed and
evaluated, we may want to make one or several of them REQUIRED for
implementation to ensure a minimum set of interoperability. Which one or
ones should be REQUIRED?
ISSUE 03: OK to allow the "persistent-jobs-supported" (boolean) Printer
Description attribute to be settable?
ISSUE 04: OK to allow the "persistent-subscriptions-supported" (boolean)
Printer Description attribute to be settable?
ISSUE 05 - Can an implementation extend the Notification Content to include
an attribute that uses the 'collection' attribute syntax? If so, should we
REQUIRE that Notification Recipients that can accept Machine Consumable
Notifications, be able to accept the 'collection' attribute syntax?
ISSUE 06: Ok that "notify-charset" and "notify-natural-language" member
attributes don't follow the "xxx-supported" rule for collection member
attributes, since the "xxx-supported" attributes are "charset-supported" and
"generated-natural-language-supported", respectively, instead of
"notify-charset-supported" and "notify-natural-language-supported"?
Thanks,
Tom