I second all of Mike's comments.
I'd rather have no definition at all than have one that is obscure or has
too much latitude in interpretation.
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, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>> Comments inline...
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>> On Jul 13, 2015, at 12:47 PM, wamwagner at comcast.net wrote:
>> I am unhappy with "... conformance requirement that applies to a
> particular capability or feature." as a general statement because:
>> a. Most conformance requirements apply to a particular
> capability or feature. I assume that one is to infer that the requirement
> applies only if that capability or feature exists in the subject
> implementation seeking to be conformant.
>> Per RFC 2119, REQUIRED, MUST, and MUST NOT are unconditional by
> themselves. You make them conditional by making the statement containing
> them conditional, e.g., 'If the Printer supports two-sided printing, the
> Printer MUST support the "sides" Job Template attribute.'
>> There is there is the additional question as to whether the term should
> 'Conditionally Required" or "Conditionally Mandatory". Since the basic
> compliance term is "Required", "Conditionally Required" seems more
>> A reasonable variation on the 2003 definition and the RFC2119 definition
> of requirement levels is :
>> *CONDITIONALLY REQUIRED*: definition is a requirement of the
> specification if the specified condition is true.
>> I'm not super happy with this...
>> One might prefer a term other than "definition", such as capability or
> feature, and consider a requirement of the implementation rather than of
> the specification, but RFC 2119 wording is:" … definition is an absolute
> requirement of the specification."
>> Alternatively, we could modify the current definition to:
>> *CONDITIONALLY REQUIRED*: A conformance requirement that applies if the
> specified condition is true.
>> I like this better, or the definition you quoted from 5100.6:
>> "The term CONDITIONALLY REQUIRED means that the Printer MUST support the
> feature, if the specified condition is true."
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...