From: Ira McDonald (blueroofmusic@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Feb 06 2009 - 13:20:00 EST
Hi Brian,
Thanks - good examples.
I agree with your summary of what the content should be.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com
winter:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
summer:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Brian Smithson
<brian.smithson@ricoh-usa.com> wrote:
> During the 2/5/09 conference call, we talked about how to provide
> complete information for an implementer while still limiting the amount
> of information that is duplicated from (and potentially inconsistent
> with) Microsoft's NAP documents and PWG's attributes spec. I believe
> that we decided to describe each attribute with a heading title, a very
> short description (one sentence is the target), a pointer to the other
> document where the attribute is fully described, and then a detailed
> description of the bits and bytes. I promised to provide an example or
> two via email and solicit comments before rewriting clause 4 of the NAP
> binding document.
>
> Attached is are examples of an MS attribute and a PWG attribute.
>
> Please take a look and let me know what you think, or discuss on the
> mailing list if that is appropriate. Please note that the style of
> presenting the bits and bytes could be done differently. I will provide
> some examples of presentation in another email, so for now, just focus
> on the title and first paragraph.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Brian Smithson
> PM, Security Research
> PMP, CISSP, CISA, ISO 27000 PA
> Advanced Imaging and Network Technologies
> Ricoh Americas Corporation
> (408)346-4435
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 06 2009 - 13:20:07 EST