Re: [apps-discuss] [IETF procedure question] AppsDir review of draft-mcdonald-ldap-printer-schema-05.txt
Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com> Tue, 26 November 2013 16:50 UTC
Return-Path: <blueroofmusic@gmail.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 DF23E1AD8F0 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:50:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 c-HSnyfo1vRz for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x230.google.com (mail-ie0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3C01A1F55 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id at1so9316015iec.7 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:50:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=CPTMQ8uBupgWM48MbSGKp/0sqWwzFyWjJIF1HZCRoyg=; b=0PJZOIKbX2zhPf5Xy1cdrZYbVIjEt7+YLscFIogak9XdeY+q026/LhEXBin6SFMbY2 LmcPg0ustzhgh30cUcK4eialOvWWS7t6j872kFmoJ+mcnpmnw9bmc+eOCJzKoFrLkcv2 L2NpUSQO8qbG+wsmVdG7qx72z4hcyVnTNjnWgt22F9T74HyfXW67+NeUtB81LSk9lsFP dyCIOOB73sg/X2RrXki0jOltFlhvtuUz24gUYtedIS3hmnW524ZxkLOVq+3adXhl8BUH 4RXQxIzTsJgZ0V10dZo9huZ4/N0vrCWti8fI38RCS3zUe0fgRz6PTyDxlLh0c0AeqQ5b 0oyA==
X-Received: by 10.42.12.80 with SMTP id x16mr2072426icx.56.1385484653444; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:50:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.203.38 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:50:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:50:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN40gSvLDJd8D5ktQg1cfDjR0RMmk5NKd+tOko=e3kigLyDSvg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf301cc6b89c43e104ec174879"
Cc: Pat Fleming <patfleminghtc@gmail.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <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: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:50:57 -0000
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? 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/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate). >> >> 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 >> >> >
- 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