So the syntax remains:
"output-bin (type2 keyword | name(MAX) | integer(1:MAX))
So is this registration proposal accepted? Do we need a "Last Call" on the
DL to verify?
I've attached the original May 21 mail posting the updated registration
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 1999 12:36
Subject: IPP> MOD - Updated "output-bin" IPP/1.0 and 1.1 extension proposal
Ron Bergman and I have updated the "output-bin" Job Template proposed
extension to IPP/1.0 and IPP/1.1 and posted it:
This is an extension to be used with IPP/1.0 and IPP/1.1 following the
procedures in RFC 2566. This proposal is not intended to be added to the
We last reviewed this proposal in December 1998. We'd like to review it at
next week's IPP WG meeting. Send any comments to the DL. There are a lot
of revision marks, so the non-revision marked version is recommended.
Here is the Abstract:
This document defines an extension to the IPP/1.0 [RFC2566]
& IPP/1.1 [ipp-mod] Model and Semantics specification for the OPTIONAL
"output-bin" Job Template attribute. This attribute allows the client to
specify in which output bin a job is to be placed and to query the Printer's
default and supported output bins.
Here is the change history:
1.1 Changes made to the December 14, 1998 version to make the May 21,
The following changes were made to the December 14, 1998 version to make the
May 21, 1999 version:
1. Added the 'integer' attribute syntax to reflect existing practice.
2. Removed 'collator' on the grounds that the client doesn't specify
such a internal mechanism.
3. Recommended 10 stacker and 25 mailbox keywords for client
implementations that require distinct keywords for, say, localization.
4. Replaced the 'private' with 'my-mailbox' and clarified the Client
5. Added the other sections required to be an Internet-Draft.