Re: Gen-art LC review: draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-16

[Michael Sweet <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

Thanks for your comments.  I have one response (inline below)...

> On Nov 21, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:
> ...
> First: (For Barry as sponsoring AD and shepherd):
> 
> I think you might want to say more about how this and the related PWG documents are being handled cross-organization.
> 
> An RFC that normatively updates a document under some other organization's change control is an unusual thing. Usually there are parallel documents coordinating this. Is there such a parallel PWG doc this time?

No.

Generally speaking, the PWG IPP WG doesn't develop parallel documents for publication by both the PWG (IEEE-ISTO) and IETF - there is no point.  PWG documents include IANA registration templates which go through the usual registration process, independent of any IETF RFC publication.

However, since RFC 3510 is an IETF document that was produced by the (now defunct) IETF IPP WG, and since this document is updating RFC 3510 (and inherits most of the text of RFC 3510), we (the PWG IPP WG) decided it should be submitted for publication by (and under the IP rules of) the IETF rather than publishing it as a PWG standard.  And Barry has graciously agreed to shepard the document...


> Why aren't there RFC variants of the PWG docs (we've republished other organization's documents in the RFC series before...)
> 
> Second: The 6 step construction in section 3 is a little odd. Why aren't steps 3-5 collapsed into one step that says "go do what https: says to do"? Split this way, especially with the repeated guidance in the security considerations section pointing somewhat loosely to 7320 and 5246 for things that "can be used to address     this threat" looks like an opportunity for someone to get creative with how they check the certificate supplied by the server against the name in the URI. If you don't want anything but what happens in https to happen, I think it needs to be more clearly stated. Otherwise, doesn't this go off into RFC 6125 territory?
> 
> Lastly (and much smaller nits):
> 
> There are several callouts from the text that look like references that are not represented in the references section.
> ID nits complains about all of these, and should make them easy to find and fix.
> For example (from section 1.2):
>>  2) Some existing IPP Client and IPP Printer implementations of HTTP
>>      Upgrade [RFC 2717] do not perform upgrade at the beginning of
>> 
> This reference is oddly constructed - please check early with the RFC Editor on whether they
> will take this, or want something a little different.
>> [HTTP1.1]     HTTP/1.1.  See [RFC7230], [RFC7231], [RFC7232],
>>              [RFC7233], [RFC7234], and [RFC7235].  
>> 
> This line is wrong, and is causing idnits to complain once where it shouldn't.
> (The thing in the [] should be RFC7235, not 4):
>>   [RFC7234]  Fielding, R., and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
>>              (HTTP/1.1):  Authentication", RFC 7235, June 2014.  
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair