PWG-IPP Mail Archive: RE: PWG-IPP> Last Call Comments on IPP

RE: PWG-IPP> Last Call Comments on IPP "-actual" Attributes Docum ent

From: Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 18:26:47 EST

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "RE: PWG-IPP> Last Call Comments on IPP "-actual" Attributes Docum ent"

    Tom,

    Yes, I forgot that references should not be in the abstract. I suggest
    that the abstract then be simplified even more to:

    This specification extends the Internet Printing Protocol by defining ...

    Anyone actually implementing the document will get the details later.

            Ron

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:15 PM
    To: Dennis Carney
    Cc: Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us; pwg-ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: PWG-IPP> Last Call Comments on IPP "-actual" Attributes
    Docum ent

    Dennis,

    What Ira and I came up with doesn't refer to IPP/1.0 at all, since it has
    been obsoleted by IPP/1.1. (Of course an implementer is free to extend
    IPP/1.0 anyway he wants).

    Here is what we suggest for the Abstract (which isn't supposed to have any
    [] document references, so parens are used):

    This specification extends the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) (RFC2911 and
    RFC 2910) by defining ...

    And for the Introduction:

    This specification extends the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) [RFC2911,
    RFC 2910] by defining ...

    I'm editing these suggested phrases into a proposed IEEE-ISTO template,
    along with all of your other comments on the template.

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Dennis Carney [mailto:dcarney@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:24
    To: pwg-ipp@pwg.org; Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us
    Subject: RE: PWG-IPP> Last Call Comments on IPP "-actual" Attributes
    Docum ent

    Ron,

    1. Okay, so if I get rid of all references to 2565 and 2566, but leave the
    claim that I'm extending both 1.0 and 1.1, I'll get what I want, right?
    Thanks for the clarification.

    4. Yeah, I know I can force a line-break, but I thought there might be a
    better way. (By the way, some people actually do pronounce this proposal
    the "dash actual proposal", or say "Now we'll move to a discussion of dash
    actuals.")

    Thanks again for the comments,
    Dennis

     

                          Ron.Bergman@hitac

                          hi-ps.us To: Dennis
    Carney/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS

                                                   cc:

                          01/23/03 11:14 AM Subject: RE: PWG-IPP> Last
    Call Comments on IPP "-actual" Attributes Docum ent
     

     

    Dennis,

    (Numbers correspond to my original message below.)

    1. The original protocol and model documents are obsolete since the
       new documents apply to both. (i.e. IPP 1.0 is a subset of 1.1)
       The differences between IPP 1.0 and 1.1 are extensively covered
       in the latest documents. All you need to say in the Abstract
       and Introduction is: "This document specifies an extension to
       the Internet Printing Protocol/1.0 and 1.1 [RFC2910, RFC2911]."

    4. I have encounter problems like this with WORD before. The only
       way to correct this (that I have found) is to insert a return
       at the beginning of the string. This is not a big problem in
       this case since you are not justifying the paragraph. But if
       the paragraph is ever modified later, the return may then have
       to be removed. (But, at least the text looks better!)

       Another suggestion is to change "-actual" to "Actual" in the
       entire document. (e.g. PWG Standard for IPP: "Actual"
       Attributes) This would eliminate the strange looking "-"
       throughout the document. (and no one is going to pronounce
       the dash when discussing the document anyway)

    Hope these comments help.

                 Ron

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Dennis Carney [mailto:dcarney@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:49 AM
    To: pwg-ipp@pwg.org; Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us
    Subject: Re: PWG-IPP> Last Call Comments on IPP "-actual" Attributes
    Document

    Ron,

    Thanks for the review. I'll cover your comments one by one.

    1. I want the "-actual" proposal to extend both IPP 1.1 AND 1.0. That is,
    some implementer that implements 1.0 (maybe they can't do 1.1 due to not
    doing security?) could still implement the "-actual" extension. I
    *definitely* don't want to limit this to only extending IPP 1.1--to tell a
    1.0 implementer that to do "-actual"s they also have to do 1.1.

    So, I don't understand the situation. If 2565 and 2566 are obsolete, does
    that mean IPP 1.0 is "obsolete"? Is it against the rules to extend an
    obsolete standard, no matter how many implementations might exist in the
    real world? Is there a way to extend 1.0 without breaking any rules (like
    maybe just remove the two RFCs from the references section, or make them
    Informative References)?

    2. I like your suggestion.

    3. I don't mind getting rid of that text, but thought it made things
    clearer, if not to the editorial reader then to the implementer. What do
    others think?

    4. Is there a way in Word to tell it not to do that?

    5. Tom Hastings was putting together a new "PWG template", and in that, he
    was making the argument to use the page numbering and headers you see in
    the "-actual" spec, for usability (especially Acrobat Reader) reasons. He
    convinced me (and Harry went along) to use the more usable method in this
    document. If need be, I can change these.

    Dennis Carney
    IBM Printing Systems

                          Ron.Bergman@hitac

                          hi-ps.us To: pwg-ipp@pwg.org

                          Sent by: cc:

                          owner-pwg-ipp@pwg Subject: PWG-IPP> Last Call
    Comments on IPP "-actual" Attributes Document
                          .org

                          01/22/03 04:36 PM

    Technically the document looks very sound. The following comments
    are primarily editorial.

    1. RFC 2565 and 2566 are obsolete. It is not appropriate to reference
       obsolete documents, especially as a normative reference. See
          Line 146 (in section 1 Introduction)
          Line 228 (in section 3 -actual attributes)
          Line 331 - 336 (in section 7.1 Normative References

    2. In lines 151 & 152 recommend changing "(or are going to print)" to
       "(or are expected to be printed)" to be more consistent with the
       example in section 3.3.

    3. In line 239 remove "that has the" and all of the text in the
       following line. This additional text adds nothing and results in
       a sentence that is very difficult to read.

    4. In lines 279 and 280 there is a strange split (by WORD) of the
       string "-attribute".

    5. The formatting of the document is not per ISTO requirements.
       Specifically page numbering and headers. Is there a procedure
       for format review prior to final publication? I propose that
       this needs to be established.

                 Ron Bergman
                 Hitachi Printing Solutions



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 18:22:08 EST