attachment

<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> Ira,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> These are my personal comments of the specification.  They are not important to the meaning of the document but I thought I would point them out.  So please decide on a case-by-case basis to do with each comment.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> This is first time I am taking a detailed look at all the sections; so my comments I believe how a external might perceive the specification.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Abstract: Paragraph 2.<o:p></o:p> Introduction: Paragraph 1<o:p></o:p> I looked up the phrase “standards-track” and understand what it mean and your intent for putting it in; but does using the phrase in this document add any value.  General people will not understand the phrase.  So I would suggest using “released”.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Abstract: Paragraph 2: Last Sentence<o:p></o:p> Change: <…..> IPP functionality or features <…….>, is <o:p></o:p> To: <….> IPP functionalities or features <…….>, are<o:p></o:p> Or: <….> IPP functionality or feature <…..>, is<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Major Chapter Headings<o:p></o:p> Why do the major chapter headings have either the word (Normative) or (Informative) after the chapter heading title.  I don’t see that it adds value to the overall document, the headings or the content.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Section 2: IPP2.0 and IPP 2.1<o:p></o:p> I am unsure why you differentiate the IPP level based on physical location of the printer relative to the user.   Would it not be better to state that IPP 2.0 printers are physically managed by local user; including media change, etc.  IPP 2.1 printers are physically managed by a central entity.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Section 3: Requirements.<o:p></o:p> It looks just like a “list of stuff”, it is not clear what is attempting to be conveyed with this information. I simple don’t know what to make of the information.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Section 5: First Paragraph: First Line<o:p></o:p> Change: <…> and IPP2/.1<o:p></o:p> To: <…> and IPP/2.1<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Section 5: First Paragraph<o:p></o:p> Wording seems awkward.<o:p></o:p> Suggestion:<o:p></o:p> IPP/2.0 and IPP/2.1 specify a higher level conformance requirement for IPP Operations in comparison to previous IPP specifications.  Many IPP Operations, defined in their source (specific) specifications, have an optional conformance specification and they remain optional for the IPP/2.0 and IPP/2.1 specification in order to retain interoperability. <………….><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Section 5.1: Paragraph:<o:p></o:p> I believe the intent of the sentence is to state.<o:p></o:p> The IPP Operations in the table below have a “MUST” support conformance in their respective defining specifications.   If any of the IPP Operations in the table below are included in an IPP/2.x specification, they SHALL have a “MUST” support conformance. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Section 6.1: Paragraph <o:p></o:p> Change must in first sentence and may is second sentence to “MUST” and “MAY” respectively<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Section 6.2: Paragraph<o:p></o:p> Change “section 11.1” to “Section 6.1”<o:p></o:p> Change first sentence to <…. by IPP/2.0 Printer implementation, in ….> to <…. By an IPP/2.0 printer implementation and “MUST” support all the ……><o:p></o:p> Change statement or just the word “may” such that the sentence using the word “MAY”  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Section 6.3: Paragraph<o:p></o:p> Change “section 11.1 and 11.2” to “Section 6.1 and 6.2”<o:p></o:p> Change first sentence to <…. by IPP/2.0 Printer implementation, in ….> to <…. By an IPP/2.1 printer implementation and “MUST” support all the ……><o:p></o:p> Change statement or just the word “may” such that the sentence using the word “MAY”  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Section 7.x<o:p></o:p> I would rather see the content of this section written as a table that could be used as a check off. <o:p></o:p>     Example:<o:p></o:p>             Conform            Section             RFC/Spec         Comment<o:p></o:p>             MUST               5.0                    This Spec<o:p></o:p>             MUST               5.2                    RFC-2911          <o:p></o:p>             MUST               11.0                  RFC-3998<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Section 9: NOTE WELL<o:p></o:p> The term “note well” is a literal translations of an Italian phase meaning “Important to Note”.  Very one I have asked about the phrase did not what a “note well” was but did understand the term “Important to Note”.  (Why introduce “pigeon English” terms by literal translations.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Section 10: First Paragraph<o:p></o:p> The abbreviation “TLS” may have already been introduced but it would be clear to restate it here.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Section 10: Table<o:p></o:p> Change first TLS Requirement from “should per”  to “SHOULD per “<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Glen<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>