[IPP] [PWG5100.20] Issue #36: No test for "LOC" DNS records mandated by 5100.14 section 4.2.2

[IPP] [PWG5100.20] Issue #36: No test for "LOC" DNS records mandated by 5100.14 section 4.2.2

[IPP] [PWG5100.20] Issue #36: No test for "LOC" DNS records mandated by 5100.14 section 4.2.2

Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) smith.kennedy at hp.com
Mon May 16 04:36:21 UTC 2016


Hi Ira,

I completely agree with your statement.  Just because we are lacking tests validating a requirement doesn't mean we should withdraw the requirement - we should add tests.  I shouldn't have conflated my identifying this issue with my query about whether we should be requiring LOC records in 5100.14.  I should have raised that in a separate context so that the two issues didn't get associated with one another.

Smith

/**
    Smith Kennedy
    Wireless Architect - Client Software - IPG-PPS
    Standards - IEEE ISTO PWG / Bluetooth SIG / Wi-Fi Alliance / NFC Forum / USB IF
    PWG Chair
    HP Inc.
*/





> On 2016-05-15, at 9:23 AM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am strongly opposed to reducing requirements in PWG 5100.14 (or any
> other IETF or PWG IPP spec) just because there is not a current test for
> the requirement in the self-cert tools.
> 
> Cheers,
> - Ira
> 
> 
> 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
> http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>
> http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
> mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com <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, May 13, 2016 at 1:47 PM, <smith.kennedy at hp.com <mailto:smith.kennedy at hp.com>> wrote:
> [Issue Unconfirmed]
> 
> PWG 5100.14 section 4.2.2 requires Printer objects to publish LOC records
> for their service.  But 5100.20 lacks a requirement to test for them.
> (Should we eliminate them from 5100.14 or make them optional?)
> 
> Link: http://www.pwg.org/issues/36 <http://www.pwg.org/issues/36>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
> ipp at pwg.org <mailto:ipp at pwg.org>
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp <https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
> ipp at pwg.org
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20160516/52eac848/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4956 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20160516/52eac848/attachment.p7s>


More information about the ipp mailing list