IPP Mail Archive: IPP> MOD - Clarified "operations-supported" enum description note

IPP Mail Archive: IPP> MOD - Clarified "operations-supported" enum description note

IPP> MOD - Clarified "operations-supported" enum description note

Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:37:00 -0800

Improved "operations-supported" first sentences:

Note: This attribute is encoded as any other enum attribute syntax
according to [IPP-PRO] as 32-bits. However, all 32-bit enum values for this
attribute MUST NOT exceed 0x00008FFF, since these same values are also
passed in two octets in the "operation-id" parameter (see section 3.1.1) in
each Protocol request with the two high order octets omitted in order to
indicate the operation being performed [IPP-PRO].



>-----Original Message-----
>From: kugler@us.ibm.com [mailto:kugler@us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 09:11
>To: ipp@pwg.org
>Subject: Re: IPP> PRO - New IPP/1.1 drafts for discussion in phone
>conference on 99
>Carl-Uno wrote:
>Original Article: http://www.egroups.com/list/ipp/?start=5245
>> All.
>> The new IPP/1.1 version of the PRO document is now up on the
>PWG server.
>> expect to do final updates and produce the Internet-Drafts after
>> discussion. Thanks to Bob Herriot and John Wenn who have
>helped to write
>> this up.
>> Please note that the IPP URL Scheme text is now incorporated
>into this
>> document, we will drop the previous I-D on the IPP URL
>Scheme when this
>> document comes out.
>> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/ipp-pro-990216.doc
>> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/ipp-pro-990216.pdf
>> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/ipp-pro-990216-rev.doc
>> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PRO/ipp-pro-990216-rev.pdf
>> Carl-Uno
>> Carl-Uno Manros
>> Principal Engineer - Xerox Architecture Center - Xerox Corporation
>> 701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
>> Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
>> Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com
>I have a meeting conflict with the telecon, so I will comment here.
>Yan Gao's concerns don't seem to have been addressed:
>Yan Gao wrote:
>Original Article: http://www.egroups.com/list/ipp/?start=5212
>> Dear Sir,
>> I have some questions and I do not know how to ask, so I
>here would like
>> ask you.
>> 1. In [Encodeing ans Transport] you say that "enum" and
>"integer" are
>> encoded as a signed integer. Integer is a 4 bytes data. So I
>should encod
>> "operation-supported"(1setOfEnum) as integer, should I? Or like
>> operation-id, as a short.
>I think it's clear that "operation-supported" is encoded as 1setOfEnum,
>which a series of SIGNED-INTEGERs, not shorts.
>> 2.I noticed that in the samples given in [Encodeing ans
>Transport], in
>> Print-Job Response(successful), job-state is given tha value-tag
>> "nameWithoutLanguage" type, but it should be a "enum" type,
>is not it?
>I agree with Yan on this. PRO is wrong (still, in
>draft-ietf-ipp-protocol-v11-00.txt section 11.2).
>> 3.In the samples given in [Encodeing ans Transport], in 9.1 Print-Job
>> Request, name-length of "ipp-attribute-fidelity" is set to be 0x16(1
>> and it should be 0x0016(2 bytes), is not it?
>I agree with Yan on this. PRO is wrong.
>> And its value-length is set to
>> be 0x01(1 byte), it should be 0x0001(2 bytes), is not it?
>I agree with Yan on this. PRO is wrong.
> -Carl