IPP> PRO - New IPP/1.1 drafts for discussion in phone conference on 99

IPP> PRO - New IPP/1.1 drafts for discussion in phone conference on 99

IPP> PRO - New IPP/1.1 drafts for discussion in phone conference on 99

kugler at us.ibm.com kugler at us.ibm.com
Wed Feb 17 12:11:23 EST 1999



Carl-Uno  wrote:
Original Article: http://www.egroups.com/list/ipp/?start=5245
> All.
>
> The new IPP/1.1 version of the PRO document is now up on the PWG server.
We
> expect to do final updates and produce the Internet-Drafts after
Wednesday's
> discussion. Thanks to Bob Herriot and John Wenn who have helped to write
> this up.
> Please note that the IPP URL Scheme text is now incorporated into this
> document, we will drop the previous I-D on the IPP URL Scheme when this
> document comes out.
>
>    ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/ipp-pro-990216.doc
>    ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/ipp-pro-990216.pdf
>    ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/ipp-pro-990216-rev.doc
>    ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/ipp-pro-990216-rev.pdf
>
> Carl-Uno
>
> Carl-Uno Manros
> Principal Engineer - Xerox Architecture Center - 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

I have a meeting conflict with the telecon, so I will comment  here.

Yan Gao's concerns don't seem to have been addressed:

Yan Gao wrote:
Original Article: http://www.egroups.com/list/ipp/?start=5212
> Dear Sir,
>
> I have some questions and I do not know how to ask, so I here would like
to
> ask you.
>
> 1. In [Encodeing ans Transport] you say that "enum" and "integer"  are
> encoded as a signed integer. Integer is a 4 bytes data. So I should encod
> "operation-supported"(1setOfEnum) as integer, should I? Or like
> operation-id, as a short.

I think it's clear that "operation-supported" is encoded as 1setOfEnum,
which a series of SIGNED-INTEGERs, not shorts.

>
> 2.I noticed that in the samples given in [Encodeing ans Transport], in
9.2
> Print-Job Response(successful), job-state is given tha value-tag
> "nameWithoutLanguage" type, but it should be a "enum" type, is not it?

I agree with Yan on this.  PRO is wrong (still, in
draft-ietf-ipp-protocol-v11-00.txt section 11.2).

>
> 3.In the samples given in [Encodeing ans Transport], in 9.1 Print-Job
> Request, name-length of "ipp-attribute-fidelity" is set to be 0x16(1
byte)
> and it should be 0x0016(2 bytes), is not it?

I agree with Yan on this.  PRO is wrong.

> And its value-length is set to
> be 0x01(1 byte), it should be 0x0001(2 bytes), is not it?

I agree with Yan on this.  PRO is wrong.

     -Carl






More information about the Ipp mailing list