At 02:04 PM 4/13/97 PDT, Randy Turner wrote:
>>Well, as I expected, I received numerous comments on my proposal to
>use ASN.1 as a formal specifier for IPP. One problem though, I didn't
>hear any better ideas...
Well, Xerox suggested to use ASN.1 early on in the project to be
"compatible" with DPA, but we backed off after having spoken to the people
in the LDAP project who have spent a lot of wasted time in the IETF on the
>One question I had that might help the decision. I was curious how the
>WG felt about designing the core IPP utilizing just text strings, not
>necessarily human readable, but defintely machine parsable. If we use
>nothing but ASCII text to define our protocol (much like RFC 822 or
>then its possible that we could get along without a formal syntax
>ASN.1. In fact, we could probably get away with a BNF specification for
>the whole thing.
I was hoping that this was exactly what we plan to do. Has anybody a
different view on this?
>>One problem I had with doing this was that we were talking about
>formalizing data types within the model document. If we stay away from
>endian-ness and bit-lengths of data types, then I think we could just
>BNF. In other words, the more formal we get with regards to the model
>document and data types, the more we need a formal way to express
>the core IPP protocol in a strict, unambigous manner.
My previous suggestions for formalizing the syntax was only to the extent
that we can clearly distinguish between text strings that are the subject
of I18N rules vs. any other ones that are not.
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros at cp10.es.xerox.com