Reviewing IPP minutes from 12/07, I found:
⁃ status-code isn't a type2 enum attribute, it is a parameter; see the
following for example text (although I think I'll swap the status
message and natural language paragraphs for the next draft):
But in the 2911 and your latest 2911bis-06 draft, it says:
4.1.6. Operation Response Status Codes and Status Messages
Every operation response includes a REQUIRED "status-code" parameter
and MAY include the RECOMMENDED "status-message" and OPTIONAL
"detailed-status-message" operation attributes. The Print-URI and
Send-URI response MAY include an OPTIONAL "document-access-error"
188.8.131.52. "status-code" (type2 enum)
The REQUIRED "status-code" parameter provides information on the
processing of a request...
So despite the "special encoding rules" for "status-code" with in the
section 4.1.1 of 2911bis, the spec later describes it as a parameter but
specifies its semantics as a type 2 enum in operation responses.
I suggest that it's section 4.1.1 of 2911bis that's wrong (and should
reference section 4.1.6 below) and that the "special encoding rules" text
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...