IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> IPP Bake-Off 3 Implementation spe

RE: IPP> IPP Bake-Off 3 Implementation specific issues: BO3-IMP-4

From: Zehler, Peter (Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com)
Date: Mon Oct 30 2000 - 10:32:38 EST

  • Next message: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM: "RE: IPP> IPP Bake-Off 3 issue 4"

    Carl,
    As I recall, no Client had a problem with the Printer's response (i.e. the
    Clients behaved as you thought they should). Some human observers found the
    response unusual and raised it to the Printer implementers. The Printer
    implementers agreed that the specification was clear and they just made a
    mistake.
    Pete

                                    Peter Zehler
                                    XEROX
                                    Xerox Architecture Center
                                    Email: Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com
                                    Voice: (716) 265-8755
                                    FAX: (716) 265-8792
                                    US Mail: Peter Zehler
                                            Xerox Corp.
                                            800 Phillips Rd.
                                            M/S 139-05A
                                            Webster NY, 14580-9701

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM [mailto:kugler@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 3:20 PM
    To: ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: Re: IPP> IPP Bake-Off 3 Implementation specific issues:
    BO3-IMP-4

    > BO3-IMP-4: Some Printers would return all printer attributes even when
    only
    > one unsupported attribute was requested. The Printers recognized this
    was
    > an implementation problem.
    >

    On the other hand,

    "A response MAY contain attribute groups, attributes, attribute syntaxes,
    values, and status codes that the client does not expect. Therefore, a
    client implementation MUST gracefully handle such responses and not refuse
    to inter-operate with a conforming Printer that is returning IETF standards
    track extension or vendor extensions, including attribute groups,
    attributes, attribute syntaxes, attribute values, status codes, and
    out-of-band attribute values that conform to Section 6.

    I don't see how a client can distinguish these extra values from
    extensions, so it should ignore them. So this is also a client
    implementation problem.

         -Carl



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 30 2000 - 10:44:05 EST