Subject: [IPP] Kyocera Mita has reviewed IPP/2.0 SE and has comments

From: "Gail Giansiracusa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:43:56 -0700

Hi All,
 
Just a few editorial comments...
 
Section 4.1: 
- RFC2246 is not listed in this section but it is listed in Table 1 as RECOMMENDED
 
Section 4.2: 
- RFC4346 is listed in Section 4.1 but not again in 4.2 even though it is listed in Table 1 as RECOMMENDED for both v2.0 and v2.1 (and v2.2).  I would suggest that RFC4346 be listed again in 4.2. (RECOMMENDED RFC5107.2 is listed in section 4.1 and again in section 4.2.)
- RFC2246 is not listed in this section but is listed in Table 1 as RECOMMENDED

Section 4.3: 
- RFC5100.7 is already listed as REQUIRED in 4.2.  Why is listed again here?  It should be pulled in by default from line 334 "An IPP/2.2 printer MUST support the IETF or PWG specifications defined for IPP/2.1 plus the following"
- I would suggest that RFC4346 be listed again in 4.3 (Still Recommended)
- RFC2246 is not listed in this section but is listed in Table 1 as RECOMMENDED
 
Section 6.2:
- Note 7 is not indented.

RFC5100.7 is stated as required in section 4.2 and Table 1.  However, there are at least two attributes, "document-name-supplied" and 
"document-format-supplied" which are REQUIRED in RFC5100.7 but not listed in Table 8. They are listed in Table 9.  So, what does "MUST support" mean in Sections 4.1 thru 4.3? 

Gail Giansiracusa
Kyocera Mita 
(408) 246 2778

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp