Hi Mike,
I actually favor v2.0, with a firm hand making attributes filling
holes in IPP/1.1 (retention, history, etc.) as REQUIRED and
as many as possible remaining attributes as RECOMMENDED.
I hope we stop using OPTIONAL in IPP specs and reserve it
for "experimental" or "narrow-use" new stuff in Registrations.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG
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/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:51 PM Michael Sweet via ipp <ipp at pwg.org> wrote:
> All,
>> I mentioned this in a previous thread, but wanted to bring this up in a
> new thread to discuss separately.
>> We are in the process of updating PWG 5100.7-2003: IPP Job Extensions
> (JOBEXT), and based on previous discussions have decided to incorporate
> parts of PWG 5100.11-2010: IPP Job and Printer Extensions - Set 2 (JPS2)
> that have more general usefulness, with the remaining enterprise
> functionality going into a new IPP Enterprise Printing Extensions
> specification to replace 5100.11 (which will be obsoleted, like we did for
> the original overrides spec many years ago).
>> Many of the attributes coming from 5100.11 are OPTIONAL, so adding them to
> Job Extensions v1.1 poses no problem for our defined standards errata
> process - no change in conformance for the original 5100.7 so the
> 5100.7-2019 update will be backwards-compatible with any implementation
> conformaing to 5100.7-2003.
>> However, JPS2 also defines four new REQUIRED operations and a REQUIRED
> operation attribute (job-ids). Keeping these in a 5100.11 errata update
> would pose no problem, but PWG Process/3.0 says nothing about cross-spec
> errata updates.
>> Using a conservative interpretation of the approved process, we would need
> to change the major version number of the Job Extensions specification to
> increase the conformance requirements, and then use the "long" process
> (verification of prototyping, PWG Last Call, and PWG Formal Vote) instead
> of the "short" process (PWG Call for Objections).
>> An alternative is to make these operations RECOMMENDED and job-ids
> conditionally required - then there is no conformance increase and we can
> use the short process for an errata update. Since IPP Everywhere already
> makes most of these operations REQUIRED already, the practical reality is
> that they will be required attributes.
>> Thoughts?
>> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190307/3f98c2cc/attachment.html>