IPP> MOD - Updated IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics posted - revie w for 2/1 7 telecon [no 2nd class extensions]

IPP> MOD - Updated IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics posted - revie w for 2/1 7 telecon [no 2nd class extensions]

IPP> MOD - Updated IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics posted - revie w for 2/1 7 telecon [no 2nd class extensions]

Hastings, Tom N hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Mon Feb 15 19:44:51 EST 1999


I agree with Paul in that we did NOT need to include the extensions in the
IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics document.  We did it just for convenience.
However, in order to clarify that extensions not incorporated into the main
document are not second class citizens, I suggest adding a sentence to the
3.1.7 Versions section of the Model after the first two sentences:

3.1.7 Versions

Each operation request and response carries with it a "version-number"
parameter.  Each value of the "version-number" is in the form "X.Y" where X
is the major version number and Y is the minor version number.

adding:

The version "X.Y" is meant to included any extensions that have been
approved for use with the document that specifies version X.Y.  See section
6.

Ok?

Tom

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Moore [mailto:paulmo at microsoft.com]
>Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 15:23
>To: 'Manros, Carl-Uno B'; IETF-IPP
>Subject: RE: IPP> MOD - Updated IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics posted -
>revie w for 2/1 7 telecon
>
>
>Why do these need to be rolled into the 1.1 spec? It is 
>perfectly possible
>for them to remain outside the spec - as with any other extensions to
>operations or attributes. Note that this is an editorial question - not
>related in any way to what set1 does or where it came from.  
>By continously
>rolling new operations into the main spec we churn the main 
>spec and also
>create an implication that extensions NOT rolled into the main 
>specs are in
>fact second class citizens.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com]
>Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 2:51 PM
>To: IETF-IPP
>Subject: RE: IPP> MOD - Updated IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics posted -
>revie w for 2/1 7 telecon
>
>
>I have a comment on one of Tom's statements, please see below.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
>> Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 2:39 AM
>> To: ipp
>> Subject: IPP> MOD - Updated IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics 
>> posted - review
>> for 2/1 7 telecon
>> 
>> 
>> I have posted the IPP/1.1 Model and Semantics draft with 
>> revision marks in:
>> 
>> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/ipp-model-v11-990212-rev.doc
>> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/ipp-model-v11-990212-rev.pdf
>> 
>> Please review these additions and changes and send e-mail if 
>> any comments.
>> We want to send this as an Internet-Draft before the IETF 
>> cutoff for the March meeting, which I think is 23-Feb.  
>> 
>> The additions have already been approved by the WG as 
>> extensions to IPP/1.0 and the changes have been approved in 
>principle by
>the WG. 
>
>The source of the new optional operations is the following:
>
>Paul Moore wrote a contribution in mid-1998 to the PWG and 
>suggested that we
>add a few new optional operations. 
>
>The PWG has processed this and have produced several 
>intermediate drafts
>called the "IPP Optional Operations - Set 1", with the intention of
>introducing them as registered extensions once the IPP/1.0 was 
>published. If
>you have participated in any of the IPP meetings lately, or 
>have looked up
>the drafts referenced from the IPP web site, these operations 
>should be no
>news to you. However, as this will be the first time that they 
>are actually
>included in an Internet-draft document, it might be new to 
>some of you. The
>new operations go somewhat beyond the original charter for the 
>IPP WG, but
>are, like most of the other operations, inspired by similar 
>functionality in
>the ISO DPA standard.
>
>As a number of implementations have already included the new 
>operations, and
>that they will be part of the IPP testing in March, the latest 
>IPP meeting
>recommended, as previously announced to this DL, that they 
>should go in as
>part of the IPP/1.1 series of documents. 
>
>Carl-Uno
>
> 
> 
>



More information about the Ipp mailing list