[SM3] HP Inc. has reviewed the JDFMAP specification and has comments

[SM3] HP Inc. has reviewed the JDFMAP specification and has comments

[SM3] HP Inc. has reviewed the JDFMAP specification and has comments

wamwagner at comcast.net wamwagner at comcast.net
Fri May 19 19:41:32 UTC 2017


Fine. I defer to Ira on this, although I thought that Ira had already send a No Comments response.   I do wonder if this position reflects on the  PWG 3D Print Job Ticket and Associated Capabilities v1.0 (PJT3D) document.
 Thanks, Bill Wagner

From: Ira McDonald
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 2:48 PM
To: William Wagner; Ira McDonald
Cc: Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect); PWG Semantic Model v3 Reflector; Paul Tykodi
Subject: Re: HP Inc. has reviewed the JDFMAP specification and has comments

Hi Bill and Smith,
I'll write a revised Last Call response from High North.
I object very strongly to the complete removal of the section 2.1 Conformance
Terminology, instead of the dropping of MUST and REQUIRED.
The former section 5 Conformance Requirements should be named Implementation Recommendations.

Within section 5, the word MUST should be changed to all-caps SHOULD.
All of which would be consistent with many Best Practices specs from IETF,
ITU-T, and ISO.
Losing the all-caps SHOULDs is a critical fault in the current text.
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/highnorthinc
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 Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:55 PM, <wamwagner at comcast.net> wrote:
Hi Smith,
Thank you for your comments. At this point, I am unsure whether Ira or I should address Last Call comments. However, since several of your comments relate to the updates I made, I will respond with my thoughts. At any rate, since Ira is very busy, I would be happy to take care of editorial issues, leaving technical issues to those more familiar with the subject.  Ira, please let me know if this is OK with you.
1. There are 3 sentences that start with "Originally”:- Yes. the second and third instances can simply be removed, with it being clear the original “Originally” still holds. Although, I am not fond of “originally” since it is unclear when that was.  Perhaps the paragraph might start with “Before the introduction of open Print standards…”? 
2. All instances of "RFC 2911" should be changed to cite "RFC 8011". - Yes, sorry I missed these.  A global change will work.
3. Should the title be something other than simply "Recommendations"? -"Implementation Recommendations" would work, if that is preferred. I would avoid "Conformance Recommendations" in a best practices document since it sounds too much like a formal specification.
4. "Implementations of this Best Practices document conform to...- " Well, I was trying to avoid formal conformance words. Perhaps it would be better to use the wording at the start of the section “ implementations that are in accord with this Best Practices document conform to the …”
5. "Implementations of this Best Practices document follow..." Again, trying to avoid conformance terms. I do not see where “should” is necessary. Perhaps it would be better “Implementations in accord with this Best Practices document follow”. 
 
Thanks, Bill Wagner
 
 
From: Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect)
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:57 PM
To: PWG Semantic Model v3 Reflector; Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect); Ira McDonald; Paul Tykodi; William A Wagner
Subject: HP Inc. has reviewed the JDFMAP specification and has comments
 
Greetings,
 
A few editorial comments:
 
* Section 3.1 : There are 3 sentences that start with "Originally, ...".
 
* Section 3.1, line 272 : All instances of "RFC 2911" should be changed to cite "RFC 8011" (references in section 9 are already updated).
 
* Section 5, line 795 : Should the title be something other than simply "Recommendations"? Like for instance "Implementation Recommendations" or "Conformance Recommendations"?
 
* Section 6, line 841 : "Implementations of this Best Practices document conform to..." >>> "Implementations of this Best Practices document should conform to..." (missing should) ?
 
* Section 7, line 858 and 862 : "Implementations of this Best Practices document follow..." >>> "Implementations of this Best Practices document should follow..." (missing should) ?
 
 
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.
*/
 
 
 
 




More information about the sm3 mailing list