I strongly agree with your position - the IPP Implementor's Guide v2 is
to be a standards-track (Normative) PWG spec. And statements about
MUST (requirement) or SHOULD (recommendation) for *both* Clients and
Printers should be in the document.
Because the title of section 4 says it's about Clients, any MUST/SHOULD
for Printers should be via a point to section 7.
While this document mostly contains the first-ever guidance for Clients, the
original IG v1 was all about Printer implementations, and IG v2 certainly
should add best practices (especially strong SHOULD statements) about
Printer behavior, when they haven't already been specified in other IETF
or PWG standards-track IPP specs.
It's also appropriate for IG v2 to recommend updates/tightening of other
existing PWG IPP specs, when those are updated.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
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 Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <
smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
>> The IPP Implementor’s Guide v2 has a number of comments identifying issues
> that need to be resolved, some of which require discussion. I wanted to
> raise each topic in its own email thread to the reflector rather than
> relying on members of the WG finding on their own, or raising them in the
> meeting and hoping attendees can develop a position on the fly.
>> Topic #1: Normative Statements in section 4
>> In the minutes from “ippv2-concall-minutes-20140428.pdf” :
>>http://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-concall-minutes-20140428.pdf> Item 5d says “4.x: Remove any hidden conformance requirements for Printers
> - basically this document is about recommendations for existing standards,
> which define those conformance requirements”. I’m not sure that I agree
> with this, because that seems to remove any demand to qualitatively
> evaluate the different options in the subsections of section 4. I think it
> isn’t a question of “pass / fail” but rather evaluation using the
> qualitative labels in section 4. I know this makes section 4 unique when
> compared with the typical conventions of using RFC 2119 normative language
> and generating conformance requirements and test plans from that. But I
> pretty strongly believe an IPP Implementor’s Guide v2 test suite needs to
> evaluate Clients and Printers for their quality.
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...