It's OK w/ me, but...
I would note that the IESG did NOT accept the distinction
between Type 2 (reviewed) and Type 3 (no review)
keywords and has always directed IANA to require the
Designated Experts (Mike/Ira) to review all registrations.
So I'm not sure this is an important correction to make.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>> Currently PWG 5100.2 defines the output-bin attribute as "type2 keyword |
> name(MAX)", however we normally define such things as "type3 keyword |
>> What do people think about amending the registration of output-bin to be
> "type3 keyword | name(MAX)" and doing an errata for 5100.2?
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...