IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - TheIPPNotification I-Ds will now go the IESG)] Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:03:45 -0600 From: David Kellerman <david_kellerman@nls.com>

IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - TheIPPNotification I-Ds will now go the IESG)] Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:03:45 -0600 From: David Kellerman <david_kellerman@nls.com>

IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - TheIPPNotification I-Ds will now go the IESG)] Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:03:45 -0600 From: David Kellerman <david_kellerman@nls.com>

David Kellerman david_kellerman at nls.com
Thu Aug 24 15:17:53 EDT 2000


Ira,

> The current spec REQUIRES that particular notifications
> convey the semantic meaning (at least) of various
> IPP Printer and Job object attributes.
> 
> That requirements CANNOT be tested in implementations,
> because there is no discussion of how a human user
> can possibly determine that the 'printer-name' value
> is the next word in the notification content.
> 
> The IETF has NEVER let a protocol standard advance
> on the Internet 'standards track' (AFTER Proposed
> Std) that contains an untestable MUST.
> 
> To meet your (and other PWG members) desires, simply
> delete all language about the content OR change it
> be SHOULD (RECOMMENDED) and punt on testing.

I know the IETF works in strange and wonderful ways, but I don't
understand what you're saying.  You're testing delivery of
e-mail with human-readable content that is supposed to contain
certain information.  You run the software to produce the
e-mail message, you hand the message to a human (who understands
the localized language) to read, and they tell you whether the
required content is present.  End of test. 

If it were machine-readable content, you'd expect to be able to
parse it mechanically.  But it's not. 

David

::  David Kellerman         Northlake Software      503-228-3383
::  david_kellerman at nls.com Portland, Oregon        fax 503-228-5662



More information about the Ipp mailing list