Re: [apps-discuss] [IETF procedure question] AppsDir review of draft-mcdonald-ldap-printer-schema-05.txt
t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Fri, 06 December 2013 09:40 UTC
Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133D11AE307 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 01:40:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.151
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gQ0WctGE4SGd for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 01:40:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from co9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co9ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [207.46.163.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D581AD72A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 01:40:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail61-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.243) by CO9EHSOBE036.bigfish.com (10.236.130.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:40:19 +0000
Received: from mail61-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail61-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA2FA017B; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:40:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.249.213; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:AM2PRD0710HT002.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -13
X-BigFish: PS-13(zzbb2dI98dI9371I542I1432Idbf2izz1f42h2148h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h2146h1202h1e76h20f7h2189h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h1033IL17326ah8275bh8275dh1de097h186068h1d68deh18f31ejz2dh2a8h5a9h839h947hd24hf0ah1177h1179h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah139eh13b6h1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h1758h17f1h184fh1898h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah2222h224fh1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1e23h2218h2216h226dh22d0h2327h2336h304l1d11m1155h)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(24454002)(479174003)(189002)(199002)(377454003)(51704005)(13464003)(85306002)(15975445006)(31966008)(49866001)(47736001)(50226001)(74662001)(80976001)(47446002)(74502001)(87286001)(87266001)(51856001)(19580395003)(76482001)(19580405001)(83322001)(87976001)(23756003)(83072001)(74876001)(47976001)(44736004)(50986001)(84392001)(88136002)(4396001)(19273905006)(77982001)(59766001)(81342001)(77096001)(61296002)(77156001)(50466002)(15202345003)(66066001)(14496001)(62966002)(80022001)(65816001)(53806001)(74366001)(74706001)(76796001)(42186004)(85852002)(46102001)(90146001)(56816005)(47776003)(54316002)(33646001)(76786001)(81542001)(56776001)(69226001)(79102001)(62236002)(44716002)(63696002)(89996001)(74416001)(7726001)(16351025005)(563064011); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:DB3PR07MB060; H:DBXPRD0210HT005.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:157.56.253.181; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0; LANG:en;
Received: from mail61-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail61-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 1386322817552566_8174; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:40:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO9EHSMHS023.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.237]) by mail61-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82C6A700071; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:40:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AM2PRD0710HT002.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.249.213) by CO9EHSMHS023.bigfish.com (10.236.130.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:40:17 +0000
Received: from DB3PR07MB060.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.137.151) by AM2PRD0710HT002.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.255.165.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.383.1; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:40:02 +0000
Received: from DBXPRD0210HT005.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (157.56.253.181) by DB3PR07MB060.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.137.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.837.10; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:40:00 +0000
Message-ID: <002801cef266$b35681a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
References: <CAN40gSvLDJd8D5ktQg1cfDjR0RMmk5NKd+tOko=e3kigLyDSvg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.02.1311261801470.25822@mac-allocchio3.local>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:05:44 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: [157.56.253.181]
X-ClientProxiedBy: AM3PR07CA005.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.16.45) To DB3PR07MB060.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.137.151)
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0052308DC6
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Cc: apps-discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [IETF procedure question] AppsDir review of draft-mcdonald-ldap-printer-schema-05.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:40:27 -0000
----- Original Message ----- From: "Claudio Allocchio" <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it> To: "Ira McDonald" <blueroofmusic@gmail.com> Cc: "Pat Fleming" <patfleminghtc@gmail.com>; <apps-discuss@ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 5:05 PM > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2013, Ira McDonald wrote: > > > Hi Alexey, > > > > I'm confused about current IETF procedures. > > > > You requested that I should NOT post a new draft until directed to do so > > by my document shepherd or AD. > > > > But, according to the IETF datatracker there is NO assigned document > > shepherd or AD for this document: > > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcdonald-ldap-printer-schema/ > > > > And the same holds true for the closely related IPPS URI Scheme draft: > > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme/ > > > > How do I get a responsible AD or document shepherd assigned to these > > documents? > > Ira, > > that's because the whole Datatracker was designed to describe "reviews" > being performed when the IETF Last Call is issued by the IESG, and as such > "there is a Shepard and AD". > > but lately we started the "Early Review" experiment, when WG chairs can > request reviews even before the LC is out, to make easier and more > efficient the process. > > Alexey (but I made the same slight mistake!) used a template form which is > for the traditional "in LC period" reviews... also because we do not have > one (yet) for the Early Review ones... > > ... yes something to fix into the documentation! Indeed, and being engineers, we can cope with things like that. Meanwhile, I hope that there will be an AD for these two I-Ds. I would like them to progress, bringing RFC2910, RFC2911 up-to-date, and presume that that would be as an individual submission, which then needs an AD. I am willing to review them (although my expertise in printing is more user than implementor). Tom Petch > Cheers, > > - Ira > > Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) > > Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG > > Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG > > Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group > > Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG > > IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB > > Blue Roof Music / High North Inc > > http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic > > http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc > > mailto: blueroofmusic@gmail.com > > Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 > > Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>wrote: > > > >> Hi Alexey, > >> > >> Thanks for you excellent comments! My apologies for not acknowledging > >> them sooner. > >> > >> I need to think about resolutions and discuss w/ the IEEE-ISTO PWG > >> Internet Printing > >> Protocol WG, so I'll be a week or so responding yet (our next meeting is 2 > >> December). > >> > >> Cheers, > >> - Ira (co-editor of LDAP Printer Schema, co-chair of PWG IPP WG) > >> > >> > >> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) > >> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG > >> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG > >> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group > >> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG > >> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB > >> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc > >> http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic > >> http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc > >> mailto: blueroofmusic@gmail.com > >> Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 > >> Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Alexey Melnikov < > >> alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On 19/09/2013 17:34, Ira McDonald wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> The IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG would like to request > >>>> IETF Apps Area review of our updated LDAP Printer Schema (updates > >>>> RFC 3712). > >>>> > >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcdonald-ldap- > >>>> printer-schema-05.txt > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> - Ira (co-chair of IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG and co-editor of this document) > >>>> > >>> > >>> My apologies for belated review. I hope you find them useful. > >>> > >>> ----------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for > >>> this draft (for background on APPSDIR, please see > >>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorat e). > >>> > >>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you > >>> may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD > >>> before posting a new version of the draft. > >>> > >>> Document: draft-mcdonald-ldap-printer-schema-05.txt > >>> Title: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): Schema for Printer > >>> Services > >>> Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov > >>> Review Date: November 18, 2013 > >>> IETF Last Call Date: N/A > >>> > >>> Summary: This draft is nearly reading for publication. > >>> > >>> This document defines a schema, object classes and attributes, for > >>> Printers and Print Services, for use with directories that support > >>> Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (RFC 4510). This document is > >>> based on the Printer attributes listed in Appendix E of Internet > >>> Printing Protocol/1.1 (IPP) (RFC 2911). Additional Printer > >>> attributes are based on definitions in the Printer MIB v2 (RFC 3805), > >>> IEEE-ISTO PWG Command Set for IEEE 1284 Device ID (PWG 5107.2), > >>> IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP Job and Printer Extensions - Set 3 (PWG 5100.13), > >>> and IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP Everywhere (PWG 5100.14). > >>> > >>> This document is published by the IETF on behalf of the Internet > >>> Printing Protocol Working Group of the IEEE-ISTO Printer Working > >>> Group. > >>> > >>> > >>> Most of the issues I found are minor. In general the document is quite > >>> readable. > >>> > >>> General comments: > >>> > >>> I noticed that you redifined various syntaxes to have upper limits on > >>> Directory strings. URI and Language Tags have no upper limits. I suspect > >>> that limits that you added are going to be sufficient in most cases, but it > >>> would be better for your document to call these out explicitly in text. > >>> > >>> > >>> In Section 1: > >>> > >>> This document updates RFC 3712. > >>> > >>> But the draft header says that it Obsoletes it. I think Obsolete is > >>> correct, so the statement in Section 1 should be updated to match. > >>> > >>> > >>> In Section 3.3: > >>> > >>> Note: When extending other structural classes with auxiliary > >>>> classes, printerService SHOULD not be used. > >>>> > >>> You should also capitalize "not" according to RFC 2119. There are > >>> multiple occurrences of the same problem in multiple places in the document. > >>> > >>> > >>> 3.4. printerServiceAuxClass > >>>> ( 1.3.18.0.2.6.257 > >>>> NAME 'printerServiceAuxClass' > >>>> DESC 'Printer information.' > >>>> > >>>> Fleming, McDonald Expires 19 March 2014 [Page 11] > >>>> > >>>> Internet-Draft LDAP Schema for Printer Services 19 September 2013 > >>>> > >>>> AUXILIARY > >>>> SUP printerAbstract > >>>> MAY ( printer-uri $ > >>>> printer-xri-supported ) > >>>> ) > >>>> This auxiliary class defines Printer information. It is derived > >>>> from > >>>> class printerAbstract and thus inherits common Printer attributes. > >>>> This class SHOULD be used with a structural class. > >>>> > >>> Each directory entry requires a structural object class, so I think this > >>> SHOULD is misleading. Also, why is this not a MUST? > >>> I suggest you just delete this sentence or reword it to make it non > >>> normative (and point to the document which makes the authoritative > >>> statement on this matter.) > >>> > >>> > >>> Similar text in 3.5 and 3.6. > >>> > >>> 4. Definition of Attribute Types > >>>> > >>>> The following attribute types reference matching rule names (instead > >>>> of OIDs) for clarity (see Section 6 below). For optional attributes, > >>>> if the Printer information is not known, the attribute value SHOULD > >>>> not be set. In the following definitions, referenced matching rules > >>>> are defined in Section 4 of [RFC4517] (see Section 6 'Definition of > >>>> Matching Rules' below). > >>>> > >>> > >>> I think you still meant section 4. > >>> > >>> Note: For interoperability and consistent text display, values of > >>>> attributes defined in this document: (a) SHOULD be normalized as > >>>> recommended in Unicode Format for Network Interchange [RFC5198]; (b) > >>>> SHOULD not contain DEL or any C0 or C1 control characters except for > >>>> > >>> "SHOULD not" --> "SHOULD NOT" > >>> > >>>> HT, CR, and LF; (c) SHOULD only contain CR and LF characters together > >>>> (not as singletons); and SHOULD NOT contain HT, CR, or LF characters > >>>> in names, e.g., printer-name and printer-aliases. > >>>> > >>> > >>> In 4.1: > >>> > >>> Note: LDAP application clients SHOULD not attempt to use malformed > >>>> URI values read from this attribute. LDAP administrative clients > >>>> SHOULD not write malformed URI values into this attribute. > >>>> > >>> "SHOULD not" --> "SHOULD NOT" (twice) > >>> > >>> > >>> In 4.4: > >>> > >>> Values of language tags SHOULD conform to Tags for Identifying > >>>> Languages [BCP47]. > >>>> > >>> Why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST? I.e. what are possible reason to put > >>> anything not specified in BCP47 here? > >>> > >>> > >>> 4.12. printer-charset-supported > >>>> ( 1.3.18.0.2.4.1131 > >>>> NAME 'printer-charset-supported' > >>>> DESC 'One of the charsets supported for the attribute values of > >>>> syntax DirectoryString for this directory entry.' > >>>> > >>> I don't understand this description. DirectoryString is always in UTF-8. > >>> > >>> How is this LDAP attribute being used? > >>> > >>>> EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch > >>>> SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{255} > >>>> ) > >>>> > >>> > >>> 4.13. printer-generated-natural-language-supported > >>>> ( 1.3.18.0.2.4.1137 > >>>> NAME 'printer-generated-natural-language-supported' > >>>> DESC 'One of the natural languages supported for this directory > >>>> entry.' > >>>> > >>> Again, I am not entirely sure how this is used. Can you clarify? > >>> > >>> 4.20. printer-number-up-supported > >>>> ( 1.3.18.0.2.4.1124 > >>>> NAME 'printer-number-up-supported' > >>>> DESC 'Maximum number of print-stream pages that can be imposed upon a > >>>> single side of an instance of selected medium by this Printer.' > >>>> EQUALITY integerMatch > >>>> ORDERING integerOrderingMatch > >>>> SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 > >>>> ) > >>>> > >>> This is not defined as single-valued. What is the meaning of multiple > >>> values? > >>> > >>> 4.35. printer-device-id > >>>> ( 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.101 > >>>> NAME 'printer-device-id' > >>>> DESC 'The IEEE 1284 Device ID for this Printer.' > >>>> EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch > >>>> SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch > >>>> SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{255} > >>>> ) > >>>> Values of this attribute SHOULD conform to IEEE-ISTO PWG Command > >>>> Set > >>>> Format for IEEE 1284 Device ID [PWG5107.2]. > >>>> Note: For interoperatibility, values of this attribute SHOULD > >>>> include key/value pairs in the following order: (a) all required > >>>> key/value pairs (i.e., MANUFACTURER/MFG, MODEL/MDL, and COMMAND > >>>> SET/CMD); (b) all optional key/value pairs; and (c) all vendor > >>>> key/value pairs. > >>>> > >>> How does the advice on ordering interacts with multiple values of the > >>> attribute? LDAP multivalued attributes have no ordering of values. > >>> > >>> printer-device-id 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.101 > >>> printer-device-service-count 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.102 > >>> printer-uuid 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.104 > >>> printer-charge-info 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.105 > >>> printer-charge-info-uri 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.106 > >>> printer-geo-location 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.107 > >>> printer-ipp-features-supported 1.3.18.0.2.24.46.1.108 > >>> > >>> This is not necessarily a problem, but I couldn't find a registration for > >>> the 1.3.18.0.2.24 OID. The parent OID is owned by IBM. > >>> > >>> > >>> 13. Appendix X - Change History > >>> > >>> [ [RFC Editor: This section to be deleted before RFC publication] ] > >>> > >>> -bis document are required to include "Changes since RFC XXXX" section. > >>> So you should replace this Appendix with another one that details changes > >>> since RFC 3712. > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> Alexey > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it > Senior Technical Officer > tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; > fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; A=garr; C=it; > > PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss >
- Re: [apps-discuss] [IETF procedure question] Apps… Ira McDonald
- Re: [apps-discuss] [IETF procedure question] Apps… Claudio Allocchio
- Re: [apps-discuss] [IETF procedure question] Apps… t.petch
- [apps-discuss] templates for early review and doc… Claudio Allocchio