Ira,

These are my personal comments of the specification.  They are not important to the meaning of the document but I thought I would point them out.  So please decide on a case-by-case basis to do with each comment.

This is first time I am taking a detailed look at all the sections; so my comments I believe how a external might perceive the specification.

Abstract: Paragraph 2.

Introduction: Paragraph 1

I looked up the phrase “standards-track” and understand what it mean and your intent for putting it in; but does using the phrase in this document add any value.  General people will not understand the phrase.  So I would suggest using “released”.

Abstract: Paragraph 2: Last Sentence

Change: <…..> IPP functionality or features <…….>, is

To: <….> IPP functionalities or features <…….>, are

Or: <….> IPP functionality or feature <…..>, is

Major Chapter Headings

Why do the major chapter headings have either the word (Normative) or (Informative) after the chapter heading title.  I don’t see that it adds value to the overall document, the headings or the content.

Section 2: IPP2.0 and IPP 2.1

I am unsure why you differentiate the IPP level based on physical location of the printer relative to the user.   Would it not be better to state that IPP 2.0 printers are physically managed by local user; including media change, etc.  IPP 2.1 printers are physically managed by a central entity.

Section 3: Requirements.

It looks just like a “list of stuff”, it is not clear what is attempting to be conveyed with this information. I simple don’t know what to make of the information.

Section 5: First Paragraph: First Line

Change: <…> and IPP2/.1

To: <…> and IPP/2.1

Section 5: First Paragraph

Wording seems awkward.

Suggestion:

IPP/2.0 and IPP/2.1 specify a higher level conformance requirement for IPP Operations in comparison to previous IPP specifications.  Many IPP Operations, defined in their source (specific) specifications, have an optional conformance specification and they remain optional for the IPP/2.0 and IPP/2.1 specification in order to retain interoperability. <………….>

Section 5.1: Paragraph:

I believe the intent of the sentence is to state.

The IPP Operations in the table below have a “MUST” support conformance in their respective defining specifications.   If any of the IPP Operations in the table below are included in an IPP/2.x specification, they SHALL have a “MUST” support conformance.

Section 6.1: Paragraph

Change must in first sentence and may is second sentence to “MUST” and “MAY” respectively

Section 6.2: Paragraph

Change “section 11.1” to “Section 6.1”

Change first sentence to <…. by IPP/2.0 Printer implementation, in ….> to <…. By an IPP/2.0 printer implementation and “MUST” support all the ……>

Change statement or just the word “may” such that the sentence using the word “MAY”  

Section 6.3: Paragraph

Change “section 11.1 and 11.2” to “Section 6.1 and 6.2”

Change first sentence to <…. by IPP/2.0 Printer implementation, in ….> to <…. By an IPP/2.1 printer implementation and “MUST” support all the ……>

Change statement or just the word “may” such that the sentence using the word “MAY”  

Section 7.x

I would rather see the content of this section written as a table that could be used as a check off.

    Example:

            Conform            Section             RFC/Spec         Comment

            MUST               5.0                    This Spec

            MUST               5.2                    RFC-2911         

            MUST               11.0                  RFC-3998

Section 9: NOTE WELL

The term “note well” is a literal translations of an Italian phase meaning “Important to Note”.  Very one I have asked about the phrase did not what a “note well” was but did understand the term “Important to Note”.  (Why introduce “pigeon English” terms by literal translations.)

Section 10: First Paragraph

The abbreviation “TLS” may have already been introduced but it would be clear to restate it here.

Section 10: Table

Change first TLS Requirement from “should per”  to “SHOULD per “

Glen

All:

The minutes from this week's teleconference have been posted (see ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/ippv2-minutes/IPPv2-ConCall-Minutes-20090209.pdf).

Best regards,

**CW

All,

I have updated the MFD page with all of the latest specifications.  Note that both the Scan Service and Resource Service specifications have been refreshed.  It is expected that an updated overall MFD document will be available by the end of the weekend and used in discussions on Tuesday. 

 The first day of the Face to Face meeting we will be discussing the State issue that has recently been resolved.  Please read through sections 7.6.1.10 and 10 of the Scan Service specification and be prepared to discuss them on Monday.  The text from section 10 is included below.  The specification is available at <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/lcrc-mfdscanmodel10-20090213.pdf>.

Pete

Peter Zehler

Xerox ResearchCenter Webster
Email: Peter.Zehler <at> Xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-7441
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-25E
Webster NY, 14580-9701

The Scan Service operates autonomously through three phases: initialization, online, and offline.

At start-up the Scan Service enters its initialization phase that initializes all its service attributes and connected subunits. This phase may include tests of the associated Subunits and self-testing of the Scan Service itself.  After the initialization and tests are successful, the Scan Service enters the online phase with a state of  “Idle”.  The Scan Service is ready for service discovery and accepting service requests from Scan Clients.  The Scan Service may authenticate and register itself with a service directory or announces its service to the network domain in which it resides.

The Scan Service accepts new requests as long as it’s not disabled and is in one of the three states: Idle, Processing or Stopped.  Performing an administrative Disable() operation while in any state will stop the Scan Service from accepting new jobs. Performing an Enable() operation in any state while the Scan Service is disabled will enable new jobs to be accepted again.

A user submits a Scan Job through a local (via MFD UI) or remote (via local network or Internet) Scan Client to a selected target Scan Service that has the desired scan capabilities. While the service is enabled, a Scan Client can request any Scan Service operations specified in Sections 11.1 and 11.1.8.1. A Scan Client uses the CreateScanJob operation to submit a Scan Job on behalf of a user. The Scan Service places all submitted jobs in the ActiveJobs queue and schedules jobs for processing immediately or when a StartJob event is signaled based on job priority. A user may specify a JobHoldUntilTime in the Scan Job’s Ticket for a remotely submitted Scan Job to allow ample time for user to walk up to the scanner for placing his/her Hardcopy originals on the scanner. An administrator can also put a Scan Job in the ActiveJobs queue on hold via a HoldScanJob() operation preventing it being scheduled and a ReleaseJob() operation will release the Scan Job for scheduling again.

When a Scan Job is released for scheduling and reaches the top of ActiveJobs queue, the Scan Service enters or remains in its Processing state. During job processing, the Scan Service can be interrupted by a “PauseScanService()” operation to enter the “Stopped” state. This allows a user to submit and process an urgent Scan Job or a job for another service, and a Resume() operation resumes previous Scan Job processing afterwards.  Upon completion of a Scan Job the Scan Service moves the Scan Job from the ActiveJobs queue to the JobHistory queue.

When there are critical conditions impacting Scan Serviceability during “Idle” or “Processing” state, either a E.Critical event is generated or an Administrative PauseScanService() is performed to bring the service to the Stopped state. From there the condition can be fixed by user’s intervention. Then either the Scan Service generates a E.CriticalCleared event or an administrator performs a Resume() operation to bring the Scan Service back to “Idle” or “Processing” state. Otherwise, if the Scan Service needs a ShutdownScanService() operation followed by a restart or ShutdownScanService() for testing, both will require a StartupScanService() operation to bring the service back to “Idle” state and then job processing may continue.

The lifecycle for a Scan Job begins when it is created by the Scan Service on behalf of a user issuing a CreateScanJob request.  The newly created Scan Job is placed on the ActiveJobs queue.  The state of the Scan Job is either ‘Pending’ or, if the request contained a JobHoldUntilTime in the Scan Job’s Ticket, ‘PendingHeld’.  When the conditions are met to release a ‘PendingHeld’ Scan Job, its state transitions to ‘Pending’.  Scan Jobs may be held and released through administrative operations.  When a Scan Job reaches the top of the ActiveJobs queue it is scheduled and the state of the Scan Job transitions to ‘Processing’.  If for any reason the Scan Service becomes ‘Stopped’ the state of a processing Scan Job becomes ‘ProcessingStopped’.  When the Scan Service state returns to ‘Processing’ the Scan Job state returns to ‘Processing’.  Upon completion the status of the Scan Job becomed ‘Completed’.  It is also possible for a Scan Job to fail.  This causes the Scan Job state to transition to ‘Aborted’. At any time all Scan Jobs in the ActiveJobs queue, whether being held, pending for scheduling, in processing, or being temporarily stopped from processing, can be canceled via a CancelScanJob() operation by an authorized user.  The Scan Job state will then transition to ‘Canceled’  Any Scan Job reaching a terminating state of ‘Completed’, Canceled’ or ‘Aborted’ is moved from the ActiveJobs queue to the JobHistory queue.