Re: [IPP] Posted 1.1 release candidate tools

"Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & IPP Standards) via ipp" <> Thu, 21 May 2020 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7403A00E1 for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 08:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 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, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VmFeSS08eQ7W for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 08:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C3E3A00E0 for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 08:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 73EF21CB2; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:44:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6EEF5058; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:44:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1002) id E924E2491; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:44:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA1862491 for <>; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:44:28 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mimecast20180716; t=1590075867; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wgBg/msGC5hukeJvwkqVPu4lb6gz+yT20Ef9tCs+hf0=; b=LMNXTtF/pwozxUGKMnhMbgHPO5yCPRbYwccPSWZ3ssNdwdZ3sQeMblFQO2bT71ISAw8gup fkycwwBcSrMQrosWfA0Wlq1kMNKQrpKECvAu+oQoUtR1Wg/9mwSo7D1enviGVAcyjOaAZV nPIUjTnFX03mjC057EDSDcRGmUQ4yFY=
Received: from ( []) (Using TLS) by with ESMTP id us-mta-408-7QqUELZ-PrK-lfeQVusl-A-1; Thu, 21 May 2020 11:44:24 -0400
X-MC-Unique: 7QqUELZ-PrK-lfeQVusl-A-1
Received: from CS1PR8401MB0632.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2a01:111:e400:7514::18) by CS1PR8401MB1015.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2a01:111:e400:7511::12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3021.27; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:44:23 +0000
Received: from CS1PR8401MB0632.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::e1db:1790:ed1b:f6f3]) by CS1PR8401MB0632.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::e1db:1790:ed1b:f6f3%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3021.020; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:44:23 +0000
To: Michael Sweet <>
Thread-Topic: [IPP] Posted 1.1 release candidate tools
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 15:44:23 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1a8d7526-1882-4577-7cc3-08d7fd9dd5cc
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CS1PR8401MB1015:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CS1PR8401MB1015AAB2384EFC16E4B813139EB70@CS1PR8401MB1015.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 041032FF37
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 5NEUIyLl9IVjHHXRLvOnA7XqYr7Io94+Nhm/P7Jfa4hSnQP1Ps+Fw8DEzSZ+GozPlE6IgZikpM0G8GdM12tzcEx1Kvev3TWt+u8SnOF9WOohCt1aQfNtMPXejN5QckYr4ZZvoufnC66Z6AziMLfirNlDtSjr2DMAXBwp392t37kyzXV4PxbCHBSy34DzgACQhCn+s7DUg6zwUCgnTEFuDtpDy3QppheuZOTSG0IVWqBGga4gzgRPcHat870N7wUyZYriABY3oM8WIjKDTkaxiTVssImnDHSLypWFKzX5A0pllLmsdjvuU5c6pyHcKBljVQu3QVLOzhPw+rdkI1EBIXG/l+z3pTXdrF7BQ+4f0oiI4DdSXPQeogfh+h/S77c8
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:CS1PR8401MB0632.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(366004)(66476007)(91956017)(64756008)(66446008)(76116006)(8936002)(66556008)(66616009)(2616005)(36756003)(186003)(5660300002)(99936003)(8676002)(316002)(54906003)(478600001)(66946007)(6916009)(71200400001)(26005)(6512007)(53546011)(6506007)(4326008)(86362001)(2906002)(33656002)(6486002)(21314003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: aGAlN2tas4WDfAvw9XarkrhrLr8G3W24Or5MtrHIBkA7djOPX/dbEGCHAg/2b5hIx1s6kZJoKsSfYbJuJZy6YtHhOVaVJc8SdNsMXiLlTUGXOyksjfJBegC9D43trBv+r8jLTnnkspQjEQ5+mk8DIWSubVoU4mMFKvv4LEKA/V626v5PM944kcddSTK7/EIb9RuuUZu5Phv6DVHu94xQsRekEMQ1bUYczc81h0dkWRWmBGsOt5+CFwyoyN/z+sk1au+T+hH4zBh7L6YHaXbHgtTHAnhQlREJpgMpggJ7KkI/ra6JPdKbUWAuoqILXNwp2nQMU92bDC8J+lyH4yA6GLUeMPeH+ybtbpU8uLKNtZuoGmHqDWLw0ncHTpreO2m/Hmy/jvLJXi4s60suzk0R2yrC0lvUsN56xkWPt6rnX8i5HvIE9DYhqIcDSD8oqixH22j93hzLRjIQI5xD6ValH88XKEGl1VbzRI2uClGaGgA=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 1a8d7526-1882-4577-7cc3-08d7fd9dd5cc
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 May 2020 15:44:23.4105 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: ca7981a2-785a-463d-b82a-3db87dfc3ce6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: oi67uP1wvQGF3Kc5BdyPij+/Uzkc1JoNaLGD6dlM4amEIrWcAyLA6C4VuQ2VhzcbIj3m/XvzPe2LXuJyMO0Gzg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CS1PR8401MB1015
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
Cc: PWG IPP WG Reflector <>, PWG IPP Everywhere Self-Certification Reflector <>
Subject: Re: [IPP] Posted 1.1 release candidate tools
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: ISTO-PWG Internet Printing Protocol workgroup discussion forum <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
From: "Kennedy, Smith \(Wireless & IPP Standards\) via ipp" <>
Reply-To: "Kennedy, Smith \(Wireless & IPP Standards\)" <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8490606049258527608=="
Sender: "ipp" <>

Hi Mike,

I have reconsidered my position - I think we need to be disciplined about testing what is required. So, let's do what you suggested - have the tests pass if a group returns more than expected, but fail if they return less than expected. We need to draw the line and hold the line.


    Smith Kennedy
    HP Inc.

> On May 21, 2020, at 9:18 AM, Michael Sweet <> wrote:
> Smith,
>> On May 21, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & IPP Standards) <> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> These tests (for requested-attributes='printer-description' and ='job-template') were added because the non-conformance to STD92 was causing problems with getting full IPP Everywhere support working in CUPS.
>>>> I'd like to know what the failures were - too many attributes returned, too few? Too many isn't a serious interoperability issue - might lead to some laziness on the Client side but testing will catch that - but too few prevents Clients from working which *is* a serious interoperability issue...
>>> I'll look into this - more soon.
>> OK, so the "job-template" returns basically nothing other than "attributes-charset" and "attributes-natural-language", which seems too few. 😞 It seems the firmware is equating 'job-template' with 'none' and 'printer-description' with 'all'.
> I'm happy with relaxing the tests to allow 'all' behavior for group names (lazy, but not an issue for interoperability and an implementation choice I made early in CUPS history and later updated to Do The Right Thing...), but clearly the printer thinks 'job-template' is an attribute name and is filtering out all attributes except 'job-template'... :/
> The current expectation (based on the RFC text that dates back to IPP/1.0) is that 'job-template' will return all of the 'xxx-default', 'xxx-ready', and 'xxx-supported' Printer attributes that correspond to the supported Job Template attributes for the printer.
> ....
> The current ad-hoc best practice (as implemented by CUPS and cups-filters) is to send "requested-attributes"='all','media-col-database' as an IPP/2.0 request and then (if that fails) send "requested-attributes"='all' as an IPP/1.1 request and deal with the lack of "media-col-database" information...
> When monitoring status, CUPS (and others) typically provide a list of (status) attributes they require, and largely that seems to work with most printers.
> So at the very least we need to make sure that 'all','media-col-database' works, as well as requests for specific attributes.  I would also like to see that 'printer-description' and 'job-template' work (to the extent that they return at least the corresponding attributes without an error if they return more), although perhaps we could provide automatic exceptions (i.e. not treat them as hard failures) for some period of time (perhaps for products released through the middle of 2021?) since they are not as critical to interoperability with existing Clients?
> ________________________
> Michael Sweet

ipp mailing list