[IPP] Finishings 2.1 : mapping "finSupplyDescription" into IPP? Alternatives to consider

[IPP] Finishings 2.1 : mapping "finSupplyDescription" into IPP? Alternatives to consider

[IPP] Finishings 2.1 : mapping "finSupplyDescription" into IPP? Alternatives to consider

Ira McDonald blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Mon Oct 17 22:05:25 UTC 2016

Hi Smith,

This is NOT a choice.  If you want the localized description, then
it MUST be in a separate IPP attribute (like existing mappings
for Alert, Input, Output, etc. from Printer/Finisher MIB).

This is not just a style issue.  This is a strict IPP requirement that
a given attribute is either completely a localized IPP datatype (text)
or is not localized (octetString).

Prior art in MIB to IPP mapping had a good reason.

- 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
mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Jan-April: 579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
May-Dec: PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <
smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:

> Hi there,
> As you may have noticed in the most recent draft of Finishing 2.1, Ira and
> I added a new "printer-finisher-supplies" attribute to convey information
> about finisher supplies, which was absent before. It is structurally
> similar to "printer-finisher" but contains mappings from "finSupplyTable" /
> "finSupplyEntry" rather than "finDeviceTable" / "finDeviceEntry".
> But one of the fields that we added in that first draft was a field for
> "finSupplyDescription". This is inconsistent with how we support
> "finDeviceDescription" in 5100.1 - that OID from RFC 3806 is conveyed in
> IPP via  a separate IPP attribute "printer-finisher-description 1setOf
> text(MAX))". The difference seems to be that the key/value pairs in
> "printer-finisher" are non-localized, whereas "finDeviceDescription" is a
> localized string, so "printer-finisher-description" contains localized
> strings. But this strikes me as odd - we have "printer-strings-supported"
> now, which could contain localized strings that don't have to be conveyed
> via IPP attribute values directly.
> So, how to support "finSupplyDescription"? There are 3 different ways I
> can imagine:
> 1. Keep the mapping of "finSupplyDescription" in
> "printer-finisher-supplies", and embed a localized string within the value
> of "printer-finisher-supplies"?
> 2. Keep the mapping of "finSupplyDescription" in
> "printer-finisher-supplies", but have the value be a key into a string in
> the string catalog pointed to by "printer-strings-uri"?
> 3. Remove the mapping of "finSupplyDescription" from
> "printer-finisher-supplies" and instead be consistent with
> "printer-finisher" / "printer-finisher-description" by creating a new
> "printer-finisher-supplies-description" attribute that is syntactically
> nearly identical to "printer-finisher-description".
> In this next draft I will do #3 because I can copy / paste quite easily.
> But I'm not confident that is the right choice.
> Thoughts?
> Smith
> /**
>     Smith Kennedy
>     Wireless Architect - Client Software - IPG-PPS
>     Standards - IEEE ISTO PWG / Bluetooth SIG / Wi-Fi Alliance / NFC Forum
> / USB IF
>     Chair, IEEE ISTO Printer Working Group
>     HP Inc.
> */
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161017/fda50eec/attachment.html>

More information about the ipp mailing list