IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Editorial - IPP Model - Print-Job

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Editorial - IPP Model - Print-Job

Re: IPP> Editorial - IPP Model - Print-Job Attribute groups [RFC 2911]

From: Victor J. Lombardi (lombardiv@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Jan 09 2001 - 15:49:02 EST

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "IPP> SEC - status of TLS/SSL in IETF specs"

    Tom,

    I have only just joined this group, is their not substantial patent protection
    in this area , especially as it relates to some recent work.I know of work back
    in 1995,93 and 91 for an example that does have real relevance.

    "Hastings, Tom N" wrote:

    > I'm keeping track of all comments on the RFC 2910 and 2911 for the next time
    > we publish it. So please send any such comments as Harry has done to the
    > IPP DL and I'll acknowledge and incorporate into my copy for next
    > publication.
    >
    > In order to avoid indentation errors next time with the RFC editor, I'm
    > going to include the .3 inch indentation in the .doc file for the
    > proportional text versions as well. Then whenever we produce the I-D in
    > .txt form, it will be conforming to the IETF formatting requirements.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Tom
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 17:08
    > To: Harry Lewis
    > Cc: ipp@pwg.org
    > Subject: RE: IPP> Editorial - IPP Model - Print-Job Attribute groups
    > [RFC 2911]
    >
    > Harry,
    >
    > Yes, I agree that Group 3 is the data, and is not attributes, so it would
    > have been better to have just deleted the "of attributes" phrase, so it
    > would have read:
    >
    > The following groups are supplied as part of the Print-Job Request:
    >
    > Group 1: Operation Attributes
    > Group 2: Job Template Attributes
    > Group 3: Document Content
    >
    > About your comment on the indentation, I agree that the indentation in the
    > RFC 2911 .txt version is mis-leading. The .txt file that we published as
    > the INTERNET-DRAFT had the text you refer to at the left margin. The RFC
    > editor moved all text, except headers, right 3 spaces. However, for this
    > paragraph, they moved it right 6 spaces, instead of 3, and we (I) missed
    > that in proof-reading the .txt from the RFC Editor.
    >
    > Regrettably under IETF rules, once an RFC is published, it cannot be
    > corrected (except to publish a new RFC with a new number that obsoletes or
    > updates a previously published RFC).
    >
    > Sorry,
    > Tom
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 07:31
    > To: hastings
    > Cc: ipp@pwg.org
    > Subject: IPP> Editorial - IPP Model - Print-Job Attribute groups
    >
    > Tom, I'm reading RFC2911 (IPP Model). In section 3.2.1.1 Print-Job
    > Request, something seems less than coherent. Basically, it reads... "The
    > following groups of attributes are supplied as part of the Print-Job
    > Request:
    >
    > Group 1: Operation Attributes
    > Group 2: Job Template Attributes
    > Group 3: Document Content
    >
    > Is it correct to refer to Document Content as an attribute in this manner?
    >
    > Also, the continuation of 3.2.1.1 after the first sentence in "Group 3"
    > (The client MUST supply the document data to be processed)... should not
    > be indented under the "Group 3" sub-heading as it appears to summarize the
    > entire section (3.2.1.1).
    > ----------------------------------------------
    > Harry Lewis
    > IBM Printing Systems
    > ----------------------------------------------





    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 09 2001 - 20:53:31 EST