Subject: IPP> My comments on IPP Ver 2.0

From: "Petrie, Glen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:23:14 -0800

Ira,

These are my personal comments of the specification.  They are not
important to the meaning of the document but I thought I would point
them out.  So please decide on a case-by-case basis to do with each
comment.

This is first time I am taking a detailed look at all the sections; so
my comments I believe how a external might perceive the specification.

Abstract: Paragraph 2.

Introduction: Paragraph 1

I looked up the phrase "standards-track" and understand what it mean and
your intent for putting it in; but does using the phrase in this
document add any value.  General people will not understand the phrase.
So I would suggest using "released".

Abstract: Paragraph 2: Last Sentence

Change: <.....> IPP functionality or features <.......>, is 

To: <....> IPP functionalities or features <.......>, are

Or: <....> IPP functionality or feature <.....>, is

Major Chapter Headings

Why do the major chapter headings have either the word (Normative) or
(Informative) after the chapter heading title.  I don't see that it adds
value to the overall document, the headings or the content.

Section 2: IPP2.0 and IPP 2.1

I am unsure why you differentiate the IPP level based on physical
location of the printer relative to the user.   Would it not be better
to state that IPP 2.0 printers are physically managed by local user;
including media change, etc.  IPP 2.1 printers are physically managed by
a central entity.

Section 3: Requirements.

It looks just like a "list of stuff", it is not clear what is attempting
to be conveyed with this information. I simple don't know what to make
of the information.

Section 5: First Paragraph: First Line

Change: <...> and IPP2/.1

To: <...> and IPP/2.1

Section 5: First Paragraph

Wording seems awkward.

Suggestion:

IPP/2.0 and IPP/2.1 specify a higher level conformance requirement for
IPP Operations in comparison to previous IPP specifications.  Many IPP
Operations, defined in their source (specific) specifications, have an
optional conformance specification and they remain optional for the
IPP/2.0 and IPP/2.1 specification in order to retain interoperability.
<.............>

Section 5.1: Paragraph:

I believe the intent of the sentence is to state.

The IPP Operations in the table below have a "MUST" support conformance
in their respective defining specifications.   If any of the IPP
Operations in the table below are included in an IPP/2.x specification,
they SHALL have a "MUST" support conformance. 

Section 6.1: Paragraph 

Change must in first sentence and may is second sentence to "MUST" and
"MAY" respectively

Section 6.2: Paragraph

Change "section 11.1" to "Section 6.1"

Change first sentence to <.... by IPP/2.0 Printer implementation, in
....> to <.... By an IPP/2.0 printer implementation and "MUST" support
all the ......>

Change statement or just the word "may" such that the sentence using the
word "MAY"  

Section 6.3: Paragraph

Change "section 11.1 and 11.2" to "Section 6.1 and 6.2"

Change first sentence to <.... by IPP/2.0 Printer implementation, in
....> to <.... By an IPP/2.1 printer implementation and "MUST" support
all the ......>

Change statement or just the word "may" such that the sentence using the
word "MAY"  

Section 7.x

I would rather see the content of this section written as a table that
could be used as a check off. 

    Example:

            Conform            Section             RFC/Spec
Comment

            MUST               5.0                    This Spec

            MUST               5.2                    RFC-2911          

            MUST               11.0                  RFC-3998

Section 9: NOTE WELL

The term "note well" is a literal translations of an Italian phase
meaning "Important to Note".  Very one I have asked about the phrase did
not what a "note well" was but did understand the term "Important to
Note".  (Why introduce "pigeon English" terms by literal translations.)

Section 10: First Paragraph

The abbreviation "TLS" may have already been introduced but it would be
clear to restate it here.

Section 10: Table

Change first TLS Requirement from "should per"  to "SHOULD per "

Glen