Hi,
Canon has some questions about the draft Accounting specification and its use of IPP privacy attributes. Please reference the following specifications:
- Job Accounting with IPP v1.0 https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippaccounting10-20191022.pdf
- IPP Privacy Attributes v1.0 (PRIVACY) https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippprivacy10-20180403.pdf
The Job Accounting spec requires printers to conform to the IPP Privacy Attributes v1.0 specification. Per the IPP Privacy Attributes spec, a printer can define what job attributes are considered private as defined in section 4.1.3:
4.1.3 job-privacy-attributes
'all': All attributes except "job-id", "job-uri", "job-uuid", and "job-printer-uri" are private.
'default': All Job Description and Template attributes are private.
'job-description: All Job Description attributes are private.
'job-template': All Job Template attributes are private.
'none': No attributes are private.
On the other hand, the following attributes are considered explicitly to contain personal data according to Accounting v1.0.
7.3 Privacy and Data Collection
"job-originating-user-name" and "job-originating-user-uri":
As an example, let's say the printer does not collect the "job-name" attribute but collects other Job Description attributes.
Could another keyword besides 'all'/'default'/'job-description'/'job-template'/'none' be more appropriate for filling in job-privacy-attributes?
Canon's assumption is that PWG members might want fewer privacy items to show up on an informed consent dialog, which means coarser granularity purposely defined in the spec. (Accounting v1.0 - "4.4 Informed Consent")
Is Canon's understanding correct?
Could you tell us the background and logic behind the use of the IPP Privacy Attributes by the Job Accounting spec?
Thank you,
Rick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20200108/6ff0bf55/attachment.html>