IPP/2.0 SE collected PWG Last Call comments
Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic <at> gmail.com>
2010-11-08 17:55:00 GMT
Hi,
For review during today's IPP WG meeting, if time allows, below are the collected
PWG Last Call comments received on IPP/2.0 Second Edition.
Cheers,
- Ira (Co-editor of IPP/2.0 SE)
==================
Gail Giansiracusa <Gail.Giansiracusa <at> ktd-kyocera.com> Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:43 PM
To: ipp <at> pwg.org
Hi All,
Just a few editorial comments...
Section 4.1:
- RFC2246 is not listed in this section but it is listed in Table 1 as RECOMMENDED
Section 4.2:
- RFC4346 is listed in Section 4.1 but not again in 4.2 even though it is listed in Table 1 as
RECOMMENDED for both v2.0 and v2.1 (and v2.2). I would suggest that RFC4346 be listed
again in 4.2. (RECOMMENDED RFC5107.2 is listed in section 4.1 and again in section 4.2.)
- RFC2246 is not listed in this section but is listed in Table 1 as RECOMMENDED
Section 4.3:
- RFC5100.7 is already listed as REQUIRED in 4.2. Why is listed again here? It should be
pulled in by default from line 334 "An IPP/2.2 printer MUST support the IETF or PWG
specifications defined for IPP/2.1 plus the following"
- I would suggest that RFC4346 be listed again in 4.3 (Still Recommended)
- RFC2246 is not listed in this section but is listed in Table 1 as RECOMMENDED
Section 6.2:
- Note 7 is not indented.
RFC5100.7 is stated as required in section 4.2 and Table 1. However, there are at least two
attributes, "document-name-supplied" and "document-format-supplied" which are REQUIRED
in RFC5100.7 but not listed in Table 8. They are listed in Table 9.
So, what does "MUST support" mean in Sections 4.1 thru 4.3?
Gail Giansiracusa
Kyocera Mita
(408) 246 2778
=======================
Jerry Thrasher <thrasher <at> lexmark.com> Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:06 AM
To: ipp <at> pwg.org
correcting the subject line (document date is Sept. 26, 2010)
_____________________________________
----- Forwarded by Jerry Thrasher/Lexmark on 10/29/2010 10:06 AM -----
thrasher <at> lexmark.com
10/29/2010 10:05 AM
To <ipp <at> pwg.org>
Subject [IPP] Lexmark has reviewed IPP 2.1 SE and has the following comment
line 184..185.....This sentence needs to be reworded, suggest (.....more supplies such as
paper and toner, and have a larger memory capacity that the other classes.)
========================
Mac.Matsuda <at> brother.com <Mac.Matsuda <at> brother.com> Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:16 AM
To: ipp <at> pwg.org
Dear all,
We have just a comment as below.
Section 6.2
-Print-quality/Print-default/Print-quality-supported
-Printer-resolution/printer-resolution-default/printer-resolution-supported
We suppose these two attributes are basically the same resource.
Our recommendation is to have some guide line on how to use or change the
Printer-resolution attributes as an option.
Thanks,
Mac
------------------------------------------
Mac Matsuda
Brother International Corp. USA
mailto:mac.matsuda <at> brother.com
Tel:1-908-575-3734/ Cell:1-908-906-1312
========================
Nancy.Chen <at> okidata.com <Nancy.Chen <at> okidata.com> Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:55 AM
To: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic <at> gmail.com>
Hi Ira,
I will vote yes, but would you please take a look at the spec on line 652, where the link
should belong to the previous line and this line should begin with a new reference for
"[PWG5100.9]", which currently stuck at the end of the link to the previous reference?
-Nancy
========================
William Wagner <wamwagner <at> comcast.net> Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:06 PM
To: ipp <at> pwg.org
All,
Sorry about these comments on IPP Version 2.0 Second Edition coming after
PWG last call, but I have just been made aware of them. They are strictly
editorial and I request that they be considered with the last call comments
next Monday. The comments come from people looking at this document afresh,
un-influenced by having looked at this stuff for so long. Although I
understand that many of the objections are to things intentionally done as
they are to parallel the first edition, I believe that the observations have
merit in that they reflect what may be confusing to implementers.
-----------------------------------------
1. Section 5:
Section 5 Heading, the subsections and the tables 3, 4, and 5 listing the
conformance requirements for the operations in IPP/2.0, IPP/2.1 and IPP/2.2
are all labeled "Required Operations in...". However they also include
Recommended and Optional operations. This is confusing. Perhaps re-labeling
Sections and tables (other than Table 2) "IPP/XXX Conformance Requirements-
Operations" might be clearer?
2. Section 6:
In a similar way, Section 6 Heading, subheadings, tables (other than Table
6) and introductory paragraph all refer to "Required Attributes" when in
fact some recommended and optional attributes are also included and
referenced in notes. It is understood that may reflect a desire to explain
why the attribute is not required, but to have a table labeled Required
Attributes which contains attributes which are recommended or optional was
found confusing. I suggest that the "Required" table contain just Required
attributes. If it is necessary to explain why some attributes are not
required perhaps a separate table or just a separate paragraph somewhere
else in the document could identify these attributes and the rational.
2. Section 6.1:
Although the text in this section and in the subsequent sections does
explicitly mention that the attributes included in table 6 are required in
IPP/2.0,/2.1 and /2.2, the subsection heading "Original Required IPP/1.1
Attributes" might not call enough attention to the fact that these are
IPP/2.x required attributes as well. Perhaps re-labeling the subsection
"Original Required IPP/1.1 Attributes also Required for IPP/2.0,/2.1 and
/2.2", something of that sort would help.
3. Section 6.3:
The printer-alert and printer-alert-description attributes are the only
entries with conformance changes between versions not mentioned in the
notes. For clarity, this section should include a note about the status
change from table 7.
Notes 2 and 4 in section 6.4 already do this for the same change to other
attributes between tables 8 and 9.
4. Section 6.3:
The media-col, media-col-default and media-col-supported entries in table 8
all refer to note 1, but the note only describes the media-col entry.
5. Section 6.3:
It may just be me, but I think it might help to have some explanation of
notes 1 & 2, which state that the collection but not all members of the
collection are required.
6. Table 8
The proof-print and which-jobs-supported attribute entries in the table
incorrectly refer to note 3 instead of the actual reference in note 4.
Thanks,
Bill Wagner
===============================
#avg_ls_inline_popup{position: absolute;z-index: 9999;padding: 0px 0px;margin-left: 0px;margin-top: 0px;overflow: hidden;word-wrap: break-word;color: black;font-size: 10px;text-align: left;line-height: 130%;}
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
ipp <at> pwg.org
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
RSS Feed