IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPP] Questions on Specification History

Ira McDonald via ipp <ipp@pwg.org> Sat, 22 June 2019 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ipp-bounces@pwg.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5D81200E9 for <ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 14:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.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 8gPFNC_EB2h4 for <ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 14:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pwg.org (mail.pwg.org [50.116.7.199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C73E712010E for <ipp-archive2@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 14:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.pwg.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 7F07D12216; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 21:07:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.pwg.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08E523BAA; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 21:07:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org
Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org
Received: by mail.pwg.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id C45F43C82; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 21:07:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb31.google.com (mail-yb1-xb31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b31]) by mail.pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDDDA2434 for <ipp@pwg.org>; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 21:07:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb31.google.com with SMTP id x187so4138203ybc.11 for <ipp@pwg.org>; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 14:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vNL+3HzGaz5zJ/46kpkDzISRWqRVfW6WpIXbypiuIxE=; b=Wy+4gjtEJiQDjLStEjTfexgnHweGMnl6Cp1jKG77AO4+sj/lgN8EusOtQwrDsjSS0A vUpfn0T+Upy1qDmOvhEv1/MwoomucVbO5Zuo4+5w+XiGj2tFrT0VHXxkefHmRmrdE3th GUd+AcjVEnRPBQqLEHQAtKastGth69L1m+CHCQHlsmLqMalDSRd/9FzmuBIiAz66E7Bv vIBOSoCicAV76vhfQPaWpGqw3Ut90IMWdMD7ptrWr3nXrR8ubfcM/SeWkxOLsBRP6dPr F32DhysK92hLjtaiG3ESp8fnMm9Pkj3As3DGtPAFdDruYZupm+le/QIpA6YQLnYBvQNt pP3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vNL+3HzGaz5zJ/46kpkDzISRWqRVfW6WpIXbypiuIxE=; b=SAxUJIz3IB2sh7P1iIg4+FKEcfkHcGDyp+5y8WJ3UcS2rQmkru/zIlbDZvUvASTU3k HlS1fsRIhgIdvfvM8QPyMtIdare/lJR/+LQItDW0I+Auj2TLY4lXX2gbeFQQsBIRmt5y JZdVBsgedWNyDkhf8CqM+FOxOgetyMTr5weXBMtx2tG1lZGR/DceERkzkdoacd/27AMm oAs6lxoeNhu/6b5zZTptDzQH6IrXI8NrhfOHMYsm7ezPUD3OU8l7eanG65GlxsqlqXi/ xw7R1DAo0WB6V+JPBm1UuDZKEJqcT834KbeQuj1gzcoUtA72UcZLMGoScF51Rnr780Kp Staw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXXqIFJELv8Rd2DzrR6BqcX+FGaDkdyU8RB/dCizS6fZMxB3sqy EMNWeO+odr35rYreciBKjlbzzQ60h6TXu/qNUrw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxY9Q3E0hnHkRnwXV+tz8kY7o/ZTwLMkoRf4H/0EVjFu6KnSJL/qbc6ZNjD2LF4Jki+SSuWXrthNOf5Ak8BPcw=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:9948:: with SMTP id n8mr75305843ybo.285.1561237652140; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 14:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190621215351.96C5F3C82@mail.pwg.org> <C90BA644-85FD-4025-BEBD-4338E9FF9F7B@msweet.org>
In-Reply-To: <C90BA644-85FD-4025-BEBD-4338E9FF9F7B@msweet.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 17:08:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAN40gStk0izUP4mnjou-eZtKDF6oNizMZgQ_v=GmM31zmGAmrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Sweet <msweet@msweet.org>, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Cc: PWG IPP Workgroup <ipp@pwg.org>
Subject: Re: [IPP] Questions on Specification History
X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: ISTO-PWG Internet Printing Protocol workgroup discussion forum <ipp.pwg.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.pwg.org/mailman/options/ipp>, <mailto:ipp-request@pwg.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipp@pwg.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipp-request@pwg.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>, <mailto:ipp-request@pwg.org?subject=subscribe>
From: Ira McDonald via ipp <ipp@pwg.org>
Reply-To: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1582259406746292410=="
Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org
Sender: ipp <ipp-bounces@pwg.org>

Hi Mike,

5100.10 didn't define v2.2 (only v2.0 and v2.1).  That's why we used
a new number of 5100.12 for clarity, I think.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG
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
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434



On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 6:44 PM Michael Sweet via ipp <ipp@pwg.org> wrote:

> Bill,
>
> > On Jun 21, 2019, at 5:53 PM, wamwagner--- via ipp <ipp@pwg.org> wrote:
> >
> > Looking through the IPP Published Work list on the PWG website, I
> noticed that 5100.4 and 5100.10 are not listed. 5100.4 (Override Attributes
> for Documents and  Pages) is well marked as obsolete on the FTP site.
> 5100.10 (Internet Printing Protocol Version 2.0) is not.
> >
> >       • 5100.6 (Page Overrides) apparently obsoletes 5100.4 . It is not
> immediately clear whether Document Overrides are still supported.
>
> The 5100.4 docx and pdf files all say obsolete.  Perhaps we can add a
> placeholder that points to the new one (that is already reflected in the
> internal document database, but we don't show it on the current site).
>
> >       • The relationship between 5100.10 and 5100.12 (IPP Version 2.0,
> 2.1, and 2.2) does not appear to be spelled out. One would expect that .12
> supersedes .10 . Is this correct? If so, should this not be indicated
> somewhere?
>
> Yes, when we added IPP/2.2 we bumped the spec number; we probably should
> have just reused the old number, but oh well.
>
> I can probably post an updated copy of 5100.10 that points to 5100.12,
> plus add a placeholder on the documents page with the same pointer.
>
> ________________________
> Michael Sweet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
> ipp@pwg.org
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
>

_______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
ipp@pwg.org
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email