Thanks for pointing out the typo...oof!
I tried to follow only the IPP/1.1 Model (June 1999),
so I didn't capture the other new 'finishings-supported'.
I could do so in the (obviously needed fixup.
The actual title of the I-D was set by Pete St. Pierre
(Sun) originally about 3 years ago. I'm open to improving
it (with the approval of Pete and his cohort James Kempf).
The reason some 'printer:' template attributes are OPTIONAL
when they are RECOMMENDED or MANDATORY in IPP/1.1 Model is
1) OPTIONAL attributes can be given reliable well-known
defaults by the template specification (and thus by
the over-the-wire protocol).
2) Hugo Parra (Novell) eloquently pointed out on numerous
telecons and in email about a year ago that an outboard
print manager (aka print server) might not be able to
determine correct values for some of the MANDATORY
attributes, so giving them well-known defaults of
'unknown' was higher fidelity.
(Tom Hastings just called me with the same question).
- Ira McDonald (consulting architect at Sharp Labs America)
High North Inc
From: Ron Bergman [mailto:rbergma at hitachi-hkis.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 2:06 PM
To: ipp at pwg.org; Ira McDonald
Subject: Comments on <draft-ietf-svrloc-printer-scheme-04.txt>
The title doesn't seem appropriate maybe
"Definition of 'printer:' Service Type and Associated Attributes"
Page 5 "hostname = *( domainlavel "." ) toplabel"
"hostname = *( domainlabel "." ) toplabel
Page 11 (finishings-supported) You have added the new items from the
draft attribute values extension except for "fold, trim, and
bale". Was this intentional.
I don't disagree with your selections for required and optional but I am
curious as to why they are different from the Model, appendix E. Could
this be a subject for discussion in a future phone conference?
Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions