These comments are on Revision 1, dated 10/16/00 that Paul posted on
1. It would be good to number the headers, so its easier to reference in
discussions and can be put into a Table Of Contents.
2. Page 2, lines 7 and 8, I suggest capitalizing both words in defined
terms, so they will be move obvious to the reader that they are defined
terms, not just generic usage of the words. So change "Sending user" to
"Sending User" and "Receiving user" to "Receiving User"?
2. Page 3, Section: "Identity exchange", line 10, says:
10 * The sender should specify the receiving users identify.
ISSUE: Can a single IPP FAX job specify more than one "Receiving User"?
In discussions about a new IPP Job Template attribute, called
"job-recipient-name" (name(MAX)), the issue of whether to make it
multi-valued or not, i.e., "job-recipient-names" (1setOf name(MAX)). Then
multiple names could be sent and a separate job would be printed for each
Receiving User. The advantage of multi-valued is that a single transmission
can result in several Receiving users at the same Receiver each getting a
copy of the document.
Also, should we change the attribute name to "job-receiving-user-name" /
"job-receiving-user-names" to align with the IPP FAX requirements document?
3. Page 3, Section: "Gateways" lines 17-18, say:
17 * A sender must be able to specify an ultimate destination for a
document if the
18 receiver is not the intended final destination (forwarding
ISSUE: What kind of destination and address are we talking about here? A
simple Receiving User name as a descriptive string, network address, a mail
address, such as "Room 212" or "John Jones, 123 Main St., Anywhere, USA"?
Sorry, I won't be at the meeting,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 25 2000 - 19:52:08 EDT