Subject: [IPP] IPP "status-code" *is* a type2 enum in 2911/2911bis

From: Ira McDonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 15:41:12 -0500

Hi Mike,

Reviewing IPP minutes from 12/07, I found:

⁃ status-code isn't a type2 enum attribute, it is a parameter; see the
following for example text (although I think I'll swap the status
message and natural language paragraphs for the next draft):
  ⁃ https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sweet-rfc2911bis-05#page-38

But in the 2911 and your latest 2911bis-06 draft, it says:

4.1.6.  Operation Response Status Codes and Status Messages

   Every operation response includes a REQUIRED "status-code" parameter
   and MAY include the RECOMMENDED "status-message" and OPTIONAL
   "detailed-status-message" operation attributes.  The Print-URI and
   Send-URI response MAY include an OPTIONAL "document-access-error"
   operation attribute.

4.1.6.1.  "status-code" (type2 enum)

   The REQUIRED "status-code" parameter provides information on the
   processing of a request...

So despite the "special encoding rules" for "status-code" with in the
earlier
section 4.1.1 of 2911bis, the spec later describes it as a parameter but
also
specifies its semantics as a type 2 enum in operation responses.

I suggest that it's section 4.1.1 of 2911bis that's wrong (and should
forward
reference section 4.1.6 below) and that the "special encoding rules" text
is
gratuitous obscurity.

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: [email-masked]
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
_______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp

---

From: Michael Sweet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 08:56:28 -0500

Ira,

> On Jan 3, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Ira McDonald <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
>   ⁃ https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sweet-rfc2911bis-05#page-38 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sweet-rfc2911bis-05#page-38>
> 
> 
> So despite the "special encoding rules" for "status-code" with in the earlier 
> section 4.1.1 of 2911bis, the spec later describes it as a parameter but also

Yes, type2 enum values for purposes of registration (although successful-ok's 0 value isn't strictly allowed for enums) but not an *attribute*.  Status codes are part of a separate registry section.  The point of my comment in the minutes is not about the registration but that "status-code" is not an attribute, but a parameter that is encoded in a fixed location of every IPP message.

I'll re-read the sections and see if there is anything I can do to clarify it.

> 
> I suggest that it's section 4.1.1 of 2911bis that's wrong (and should forward 
> reference section 4.1.6 below) and that the "special encoding rules" text is 
> gratuitous obscurity.
> 
> Cheers,
> - Ira
> 
> http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>
> http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
> mailto: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer

---

From: Ira McDonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:28:43 -0500

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the clarifications.

I'll make a note to move the *parameter* definitions into a separate
explicit
section in the next System Service update and to clarify that they should
not be termed attributes.

I still think the operation request parameters section would benefit from a
forward reference to the operation response parameters section where the
registration definitions actually occur, rather than just the obscure
reference
to the 2910 "special encoding rules" (which of course we still need to
keep).

Cheers,
- Ira

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Michael Sweet <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Yes, type2 enum values for purposes of registration (although
> successful-ok's 0 value isn't strictly allowed for enums) but not an
> *attribute*.  Status codes are part of a separate registry section.  The
> point of my comment in the minutes is not about the registration but that
> "status-code" is not an attribute, but a parameter that is encoded in a
> fixed location of every IPP message.
>