Re: Last Call: <draft-sweet-rfc2911bis-10.txt> (Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model and Semantics) to Proposed Standard
Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> Wed, 24 August 2016 17:32 UTC
Return-Path: <msweet@apple.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7C1612D5D1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.com
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 q0UJBHfWz0XC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-in6.apple.com (mail-out6.apple.com [17.151.62.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ADF012D56F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1472059919; x=2335973519; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=B4mEAryzWRmeA6dJV8KhKV4l8q/dID5GOTibKv2T0NE=; b=gdOmKQ0+Bmj1Miy6MVh16V+V6EZ+eRzLISUezupUA74CSQ0XciTfNe294WKn0hTM 2IwmCz/UZN/EA2i9Ij4EYVuBLDFPpGI/eXoDiPNmEfE+Bw4KaxIUgqrTfGdNMA7Z XVnW326BA4om2NBanag0vnMq5D/NkwIE70NS/Btg1VJeJcELR63RJyEShqHN0yez BY9Sspy4GOFAkj0E8Ws36YTzhRu837bSF3Wr3Lb/NJpKb10+brhBdTv1ZSK8P2nf hzLjn2H8+Jaenv2NeE5cp63xhdXq1j24UtO7oT+B3+WyzGe76Z33RHODu6SqPzWd c4t2AEoi8PN/EvMdsOFB4Q==;
Received: from relay2.apple.com (relay2.apple.com [17.128.113.67]) by mail-in6.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id E8.92.07752.F0ADDB75; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11973e15-f798f6d000001e48-96-57bdda0f0f4b
Received: from nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com [17.128.115.204]) by relay2.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id C9.18.01452.C0ADDB75; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Received: from [17.153.84.40] (unknown [17.153.84.40]) by nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.1.1.0 64bit (built Jun 15 2016)) with ESMTPSA id <0OCF0096NCP6FF50@nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: msweet@apple.com
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-sweet-rfc2911bis-10.txt> (Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model and Semantics) to Proposed Standard
From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <147075365319.30624.13089702576267937900.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:31:53 -0400
Message-id: <58BE69EA-8CAC-4CAA-A1AD-318170884376@apple.com>
References: <147075365319.30624.13089702576267937900.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FDorMt/a2+4wb4rEhbPNs5ncWD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxs622SwFh9gqllxwb2A8zNrFyMkhIWAi0XTwE5QtJnHh3nq2 LkYuDiGBvYwSk0+fYoMpWrZiN1TiEKPEtIVPGEESvAKCEj8m32PpYuTgYBaQlzh4XhYkzCyg JfH9USsLRP0sJomL3z8zgySEBSQkjvcvZAVJCAu0MEr0TpsOtppNQE3i96Q+MJtTwF/i49t9 LCA2i4CqxN2/L9lAFvAK2Ehs+uEPEhYS8JM48eoPM0hYBOiGg48tIe6UlXhychHYXgmBr6wS jw5cZZrAKDwLyamzEE6dheTUBYzMqxiFchMzc3Qz88z0EgsKclL1kvNzNzGCQni6negOxjOr rA4xCnAwKvHw7li1N1yINbGsuDL3EKM0B4uSOC/vzz3hQgLpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOanFhxiZ ODilGhhVpa0WaXczdzXx8C3f+OPC0dTHTfX7jdf/TDssujl5fugqjU0/rOrlZW4/8TvJ7bfE iaehNSvqLHOvxIkfCZkS73fsVQneXMAluzO21sV5y4Glz/rZ565VcujSNV12+cAj2UvJ3OsP stofFvX4InPjQYnyK3ejuRMkDgs+F1wevcq25eb2WfOVWIozEg21mIuKEwEgUOZJQgIAAA==
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FB8Rpfn1t5wgxdL9S2ebZzP4sDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujJ1ts1kKDrFVLLng3sB4mLWLkZNDQsBEYtmK3WwQtpjEhXvr gWwuDiGBQ4wS0xY+YQRJ8AoISvyYfI+li5GDg1lAXuLgeVmQMLOAlsT3R60sEPWzmCQufv/M DJIQFpCQON6/kBUkISzQwijRO2062DY2ATWJ35P6wGxOAX+Jj2/3sYDYLAKqEnf/vmQDWcAr YCOx6Yc/SFhIwE/ixKs/zCBhEaAbDj62hLhTVuLJyUUsExgFZiG5bhbCdbOQXLeAkXkVo0BR ak5ipZFeYkFBTqpecn7uJkZwyBU672A8tszqEKMAB6MSD6/A2r3hQqyJZcWVuUDvczArifDe vwQU4k1JrKxKLcqPLyrNSS0+xCjNwaIkzstwbHe4kEB6YklqdmpqQWoRTJaJg1OqgTEqb4W3 Ucmva9JbgoRnbVd+sOfYwgU9py9wcS8J2c1c3rg+hkvwkKtpQmkh69Mee7nuUk++dXPP5p5c pGP2WXra2RKjN7ckmG9oW71xjL77eWdF3Z9NMco7bs0I/K9/xKnU2pe3YtZNx4b1R+yWOfJt fcmauG72Cs+moqv/zGMufE+tmrTlkYkSS3FGoqEWc1FxIgAWPkPqNQIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/I4AG3i5MXjAp50b3-pajRfhTB48>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:32:01 -0000
The ISTO-PWG Internet Printing Protocol workgroup reviewed the current draft at its August 23rd face-to-face meeting and has the following Last Call comments:
- The document is missing an Acknowledgements section; it should acknowledge the contributions by the previous document editors of RFC 2911 and 3382.
- The current recommendations for vendor extensions to keywords and attribute names should be changed to using an SMI Enterprise Number ("smi123-foo") with a note about the historical and problematic usage of domain names ("com.example-foo" vs "example.com-foo" vs "jp.co.example-foo"). (this change is also consistent with a comment on prefixes that was made during the first last call for this document)
_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer
- Re: Last Call: <draft-sweet-rfc2911bis-10.txt> (I… Michael Sweet