Good suggestions.
Thanks,
Tom
At 09:34 09/03/97 PDT, Ron Bergman wrote:
>Tom,
>
>Please review the following comments and indicate which you will include
>and which require further discussion. I consider all of these editorial
>changes only.
>
>
>1. New text on page 20, fourth paragraph:
>
> It is recommended that agents that are providing access to
> servers/devices that already allocate job-identifiers for jobs as
> integers use the same integer value for the jmJobIndex. Then the jobs
> will have the same job identifier value as the jmJobIndex value, so that
> users viewing jobs by management applications using this MIB and
> applications using other protocols will see the same job identifiers for
> the same jobs.
>
> Change to: (The first part of the second sentence is a re-word of the
> first sentence and has no added value.)
>
> It is recommended that agents that are providing access to
> servers/devices that already allocate job-identifiers for jobs as
> integers use the same integer value for the jmJobIndex. Then
> management applications using this MIB and applications using other
> protocols will see the same job identifiers for the same jobs.
Much better.
>2. Page 21, second to last paragraph:
>
> NOTE - Application detect the end of the...
>
> Should be: NOTE - Applications detect the end of the...
Yes.
>3. New text on page 26, second paragrpah:
>
> NOTE - For a number of job submission protocols the server/device
> assigns an integer job identifier when accepting a job so that the
> submitting client can reference the job in subsequent protocol
> operations (For example, see IPP [ipp]). For such implementations, it
> is recommended that the value of the job identifier and the value of
> jmJobIndex be the same, so that
>
> First, this text is very similar to what is on page 20. Second, the
> last sentence is incomplete.
So how about changing it to refer back to page 20:
NOTE - For a number of job submission protocols the server/device
assigns an integer job identifier when accepting a job so that the
submitting client can reference the job in subsequent protocol
operations (For example, see IPP [ipp]). For such implementations, it
is recommended that the value of the job identifier and the value of
jmJobIndex be the same (see section 3.2).
>4. Revision to paragraph 3.5.1, page 26. The current text is clumsy.
>
> 3.5.1 Text generated by the server or device
>
> There are a few objects and attributes generated by the server or device
> that shall be represented using the Universal Multiple-Octet Coded
> Character Set (UCS) [ISO-10646]. These objects and attributes are always
> supplied (if implemented) by the agent, not by the job submitting client:
> 1. jmGeneralJobSetName object
> 2. processingMessage(6) attribute
> 3. physicalDevice(32) (name value) attribute
>
> The coded character set for representing these objects and attributes
> SHALL be UTF-8 as recommended by RFC 2130 [RFC 2130] and the "IETF
> Policy on Character Sets and Language" [char-set policy]. The
> 'JmUTF8StringTC' textual convention shall be used to indicate UTF-8 text
> strings.
>
> NOTE - For strings in 7-bit US-ASCII, there is no impact since the UTF-8
> representation of 7-bit ASCII is identical to the US-ASCII [US-ASCII]
> encoding.
Much better. The only suggestion I have would be to change the SHALL
in the second to last sentence to is, since the 'JmUTF8StringTC' textual
convention is UTF-8. So the sentence is just explaining what JmUTF8StringTC
is. The preceding sentence has the SHALL in it.
So the sentence would become:
The 'JmUTF8StringTC' textual convention is used to indicate UTF-8 text
strings.
>5. Change title of paragraph 3.5.2, page 26.
>
> 3.5.2 Text generated by the job submitter
Better.
>6. Page 32, JmUTF8StringTC. The following text is repeated from paragraph
> 3.5.1, which is also referenced here. This should be deleted.
>
> NOTE - The values of objects and attributes using this textual
> convention are generated by the server or the device, not by the
> job submitter.
I agree.
>7. Page 32-33, JmJobStringTC. The following text is repeated from paragraph
> 3.5.2.
>
> "To facilitate internationalization, this TC represents
> information using any coded character set registered by IANA
> that has the following properties: (1) code positions from 0 to
> 31 SHALL not be used, (2) 32 to 127 SHALL be US-ASCII [US-
> ASCII], (3) 127 SHALL be unused, and (4) the remaining code
> positions 128 to 255 SHALL represent single-byte or multi-byte
> graphic characters structured according to ISO 2022 [ISO 2022]
> or SHALL be unused. While it is recommended that the coded
> character set be UTF-8 [UTF-8], the actual coded character set
> SHALL be indicated by the value of the jobCodedCharSet(7)
> attribute for the job.
>
> NOTE - The values of objects and attributes using this textual
> convention are either generated by the job submitter or
> defaulted by the server or device when the job submitter does
> not supply values."
>
> Change to:
>
> "To facilitate internationalization, this TC represents
> information using any coded character set registered by IANA
> as specified in paragraph 3.5.2. While it is recommended that
> the coded character set be UTF-8 [UTF-8], the actual coded
> character set SHALL be indicated by the value of the
> jobCodedCharSet(7) attribute for the job."
Good shortening.
>
>8. Page 78, second paragraph. Change:
>
> ...formats that have been reserved to agents...
>
> To:
>
> ...formats that have been reserved for agents...
Ok.
>9. Page 81, jmNumberOfInterveningJobs. Change:
>
> "The number of jobs that are expected to complete being
> processed before this job has completed being processed
> according to the implementation's queuing algorithm if no other...
>
> To:
>
> "The number of jobs that are expected to complete processing
> before this job has completed processing according to the
> implementation's queuing algorithm, if no other...
Yes.
>10. Page 1, second paragraph. (Closing quote is in the wrong position.)
>
> as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
> progress."
>
> Should be:
>
> as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
> progress".
This is the only one I disagree with! Proper English is that the
quote comes last. Look in any book. Also this is just copied from
the usual IETF template (which is also correct).
>
>
>
> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.
>
>
>
>