From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Thu Mar 7 09:34:59 2013 Return-Path: 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 BF28521F8A11 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:34:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SYMy48RUTNNI for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:34:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E7F21F856D for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:34:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39B879212; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:34:29 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from mail-out.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.151.62.49]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A8DD79211; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:34:12 -0500 (EST) MIME-version: 1.0 Received: from relay3.apple.com ([17.128.113.83]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MJA0021OWS4XK11@mail-out.apple.com>; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:34:03 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11807153-b7f8a6d0000064e7-75-5138cf87acf6 Received: from [17.153.102.219] (Unknown_Domain [17.153.102.219]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay3.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id E1.82.25831.98FC8315; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:34:02 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Sweet In-reply-to: <000001ce12d8$fc4c2e50$f4e48af0$@net> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:33:58 -0500 Message-id: <0DC887B1-3420-4117-9A6D-8202733FF41F@apple.com> References: <000001ce12d8$fc4c2e50$f4e48af0$@net> To: William A Wagner X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1695) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiODPttm7XeYtAg4utOhbH9r1ksdjaf4bJ 4si3WItzFxQdWDy2nvzB5jH58RxGj3mLpzMFMEdx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZcxYeo21YOJlxooz 954wNzBO2MHYxcjJISFgIrFm3yJWCFtM4sK99WxdjFwcQgL9TBJXu1tYQBLCAq4STceugjXw CuhJnNtyCKyBWSBB4vW0BcwgNpuAmsTvSX1gcU4BI4kD+1eB1bMIqEj8ufmLDaJeTuLC3ZOs EHNsJG4/ecMEYgsJGEqs2HAMrF5EQEeiuWEm1HGyEl/uTmCcwMg3C8nqWUhWQ9jaEssWvgay OYBsHYnJCxlRhSHsj+ePMC1gZFvFKFCUmpNYaayXWFCQk6qXnJ+7iREUwA2FwTsY/yyzOsQo wMGoxMNbsckiUIg1say4MvcQowQHs5IIr/tyoBBvSmJlVWpRfnxRaU5q8SFGaQ4WJXHeM7fN A4UE0hNLUrNTUwtSi2CyTBycUg2Mq2YUr5vNojntvNqD7onee9+8C1ixf2UV063bt50+COwR /N+wJ79/hvuv3bVHmhziF17K0RReY/bIN+uA9W8L6YWsFVvfl7MIRHxIE9dM/L4yXpj37i+Z JPf3HyrPmvnprDnec8ArvIJjWkMdA9uhjwf5TA63s4R3awSHVSb/Zlm9sIM5f0mpEktxRqKh FnNRcSIABlLurVwCAAA= X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: ipp@pwg.org, mfd@pwg.org Subject: [IPP] Re: [MFD] Comments on IPP Faxout Spec w/r SM FaxOut Service X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2101116070==" Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: F39B879212.AAB39 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org --===============2101116070== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_X1w32BYOfZ210fR35zkiNg)" --Boundary_(ID_X1w32BYOfZ210fR35zkiNg) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Bill, Sorry, finally getting a chance to read through this and respond... On Feb 24, 2013, at 4:50 PM, William A Wagner wrote: > In pursuing the question about the SM correlation to Get-Printer-Suppported-Values in table 1, Operations for IPP FaxOut, there appear to be several inconsistencies. > 1. ValidateFaxOutJob does not exist. ValidateFaxOutJobTicket is probably intended. Correct. > 2. I find no RestartFaxOutJob in either the SM FaxOut Service or general SM Model. Does the make sense? There is a ResubmitFaxOutJob. I believe IPP's Restart-Job was never brought into the Semantic Model because of the accounting issues is causes. I can ban its use in FaxOut, much like we've banned Print-Job and Print-URI, if people prefer... > 3. The SM FaxOut Service does not appear to differentiate GetFaxOutJobElements from the general GetJobElements, which has an important difference from IPP Get-Job-Attributes. Unlike the IPP Get-Job-Attributes, the GetFaxOutJobElements request does not specify individual Elements. Rather, the Client requests specific groups of Elements contained within the Job. The allowed values for RequestedElements are Job Receipt, Job Status, or Job Ticket. It is not clearly stated whether the FaxOut follows the Common Semantics (presumably it must) or the IPP printer approach. I believe this is an artifact of the web services binding; IPP has attribute groups that can be requested (job-template, job-description, etc.) as well as individual named attributes, so I don't think this is an issue. > 4. The SM FaxOut Service does not appear to differentiate GetFaxOutServiceElements from the general GetServiceElements, which has an important difference from IPP Get-Printer-Attributes. Unlike the IPP Get-Printer-Attributes, the GetFaxOutServiceElements request does not specify individual Elements. Rather, the Client requests specific groups of Elements contained within the Job. The allowed values for Requested Elements are Service Capabilities, Service Configuration, Service Description, Service Status or DefaultJob Ticket. This distinction is not clearly stated. Same comment as for #3. > 5. As follows from item 4, the correlation to SM Get-Printer-Supported-Values is GetFaxOutServiceElements with values of Service Configuration, Service Description and Service Status (??) No, there is a semantic difference. Get-Printer-Supported-Values returns the original manufacturer xxx-supported values while Get-Printer-Attributes returns the values as configured by the administrator of the printer - a configuration utility would use Get-Printer-Supported-Values to get the full set of values that can be configured and Get-Printer-Attributes to get the currently configured values. What we'd need is (effectively) a DefaultConfiguration group in the Semantic Model to provide the same information. > 6. Comment: - should the SM address subscriptions? I think we need to for Cloud, at least. > 7. ReleaseHeldNewFaxOutJobs does not exist. ReleaseHeldFaxOutJobs ( no 'new') is probably intended. Correct. > 8. Deactivate and Activate were dropped from the SM model. Do we really need these? They are part of IPP already. > 9. It might be noted that Startup-Printer correlates to StartupService (FaxOut) of the System Control Service. Done. > 10. Neither the SM FaxOut nor Common Semantics include an operation correlating to Reprocess-Job. It is not clear how this would act for FaxOut. Same as for print I'd think - creates a new job as a copy of an existing one. But ResubmitJob works that way and also accepts a new job ticket, avoiding the race condition for supplying new values before the job starts processing. Perhaps we should deprecate Reprocess-Job for IPP FaxOut and just have Resubmit-Job? > 11. Schedule-Job-After correlates to PromoteFaxOutJob. If the predecessor Job is specified, PromoteFaxOutJob acts the same way as the IPP Schedule-Job-After operation. Done. > 12. There is no CancelFaxOutDocument in the FaxOut Service just a CancelFaxOutDocuments (note the 's') although the general semantics operations is CancelDocument . Is this an error in the FaxOut Service spec? Probably. > 13. I find no IdentifyFaxOutService under FaxOut, Common Semantics or System Control Service. Should this be added to the SM FaxOut Service (and all other services) or perhaps to System Control Service? It should be part of Common Semantics, with each service getting its own IdentifyService operation. > 14. The FaxOut Service identifies the following operations that do not appear in the IPP FaxOut spec: > a. ResubmitFaxOutJob > b. ValidateFaxOutDocumentTicket Yes, for some reason I missed adding those two operations to the table. Now added (for the next draft...) .... I'll hold off on publishing a new draft until we've had a chance to review the current one, but perhaps we can discuss whether Restart-Job and Reprocess-Job belong in IPP FaxOut, then the next draft will be that much cleaner... Thanks! _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --Boundary_(ID_X1w32BYOfZ210fR35zkiNg) Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Bill,

S= orry, finally getting a chance to read through this and respond...

On Feb 24, 2013, at 4:50 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner@comcast.net> wrote:
1.    = ;ValidateFaxOutJob  does not exist. ValidateFaxOu= tJobTicket is probably intended.

Correct.

2.  &nbs= p; I find n= o RestartFaxOutJob in either the SM FaxOut Service or general SM Model. Doe= s the make sense? There is a ResubmitFaxOutJob.

I believe IPP's Restart-Job was never brought into the Se= mantic Model because of the accounting issues is causes.  I can ban it= s use in FaxOut, much like we've banned Print-Job and Print-URI, if people = prefer...

=
3.     The SM= FaxOut Service does not appear to differentiate GetFaxOutJobElements from = the general Get<service>JobElements, which has an important differenc= e from IPP Get-Job-Attributes.  Unlike the IPP Get-Job-Attributes, the= GetFaxOutJobElements request does not specify individual Elements. Rather,= the Client requests specific groups of Elements contained within the Job. = The allowed values for RequestedElements are Job Receipt, Job Status, or Jo= b Ticket. It is not clearly stated whether the FaxOut follows the Common Se= mantics (presumably it must) or the IPP printer approach.
=

I believe this is an artifact of the web servic= es binding; IPP has attribute groups that can be requested (job-template, j= ob-description, etc.) as well as individual named attributes, so I don't th= ink this is an issue.

4.   <= span class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> The SM FaxO= ut Service does not appear to differentiate GetFaxOutServiceElements from t= he general Get<service>ServiceElements, which has an important differ= ence from IPP Get-Printer-Attributes. Unlike the IPP Get-Printer-Attributes= , the GetFaxOutServiceElements request does not specify individual Elements= . Rather, the Client requests specific groups of Elements contained within = the Job. The allowed values for Requested Elements are Service Capabilities= , Service Configuration, Service Description, Service Status or DefaultJob = Ticket. This distinction is not clearly stated.

Same comment as for #3.

5.    As follows from item 4, the correlation to  SM Get-Printer-Su= pported-Values is GetFaxOutServiceElements with values of Service Configura= tion, Service Description and Service Status (??)

No, there is a semantic difference.  Get-Printer-S= upported-Values returns the original manufacturer xxx-supported values whil= e Get-Printer-Attributes returns the values as configured by the administra= tor of the printer - a configuration utility would use Get-Printer-Supporte= d-Values to get the full set of values that can be configured and Get-Print= er-Attributes to get the currently configured values.

<= div>What we'd need is (effectively) a <service>DefaultConfiguration g= roup in the Semantic Model to provide the same information.

<= blockquote type=3D"cite">
6.   =  Comment: - should the SM address subscriptions?<= /div>

I think we need to for Cloud, = at least.

7.    ReleaseHeldNewFaxOutJ= obs does not exist. ReleaseHeldFaxOutJobs ( no 'new') is probably intended.=

Correct.

8.    = ;Deactivate and Activate were dropped from the SM mode= l. Do we really need these?

Th= ey are part of IPP already.  

=
9. =    It might be noted that Startup-Printer correlates to StartupService (FaxO= ut) of the System Control Service.

<= /div>Done.

10. Neither the SM FaxOut nor Common Semant= ics include an operation correlating to Reprocess-Job. It is not clear how = this would act for FaxOut.

Sam= e as for print I'd think - creates a new job as a copy of an existing one. =  But ResubmitJob works that way and also accepts a new job ticket, avo= iding the race condition for supplying new values before the job starts pro= cessing.

Perhaps we should deprecate Reprocess-Job= for IPP FaxOut and just have Resubmit-Job?

11. Sched= ule-Job-After correlates to PromoteFaxOutJob. If the predecessor Job is spe= cified, PromoteFaxOutJob acts the same way as the IPP Schedule-Job-After op= eration.

Done.

<= /div>
12. = There is no CancelFaxOutDocument in the FaxOut Service= just a CancelFaxOutDocuments (note the 's') although the general semantics= operations is Cancel<service>Document . Is this an error in the FaxO= ut Service spec?

Probably.

13. = ;I find no IdentifyFaxOutService under FaxOut, Common = Semantics or System Control Service. Should this be added to the SM FaxOut = Service (and all other services) or perhaps to System Control Service?

It should be part of Common Semant= ics, with each service getting its own Identify<service>Service opera= tion.

14. The FaxOut Service identifies the following = operations that do not appear in the IPP FaxOut spec:
a.    ResubmitFaxOutJob
b.   <= span class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> ValidateFax= OutDocumentTicket

Yes, for som= e reason I missed adding those two operations to the table. Now added (for = the next draft...)

....

I= 'll hold off on publishing a new draft until we've had a chance to review t= he current one, but perhaps we can discuss whether Restart-Job and Reproces= s-Job belong in IPP FaxOut, then the next draft will be that much cleaner..= .

Thanks!

_________________________________________________= ________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair<= /div>


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --Boundary_(ID_X1w32BYOfZ210fR35zkiNg)-- --===============2101116070== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp --===============2101116070==-- From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Thu Mar 7 09:56:40 2013 Return-Path: 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 650D621F8A9B for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:56:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HmUvvZxul-0l for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:56:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF45C21F8996 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:56:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4689979213; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:56:12 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from mail-ia0-f176.google.com (mail-ia0-f176.google.com [209.85.210.176]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF3C79212; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:55:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ia0-f176.google.com with SMTP id i18so660658iac.35 for ; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:55:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4/FsR1rWZeVD5jWtNsv8Jtj7LMSOXpDP+3I8eZs2NQo=; b=TWRt/w0XP9OZJCr5dbQZgwdz1BfCYfIN5CQkoVl05QLvUD5mGubDVXMJRzFp85cLcm Q8a22PwN/J9+ptJQWTt1B+A3Ah4g2OL9GRBNr9V4HjFM8h5+U5yji9bnmnmnVTmzdGQE rSedY3u9vgyrjTxtcQtgITb121QXnh4ptWWyLZuZKYaYJ3l/R0kPJTWtrSXLrTtPRLHo ixO/+wnWIFuAEBtrDrjng/8OO5i7o6LOnYEINUvrgei1vmJF7gnvfwOo4CjjDExt7KEs Ni4KKrWdR0mYyGj024Mt79S6PKgXtz+2UHcmfLX/TWKz56N3tz2bqBAzQi2QOd+Qyi3z k1vw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.183.233 with SMTP id ep9mr15503553igc.87.1362678953021; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:55:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.159.232 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:55:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <0DC887B1-3420-4117-9A6D-8202733FF41F@apple.com> References: <000001ce12d8$fc4c2e50$f4e48af0$@net> <0DC887B1-3420-4117-9A6D-8202733FF41F@apple.com> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:55:52 -0500 Message-ID: From: Ira McDonald To: Michael Sweet , Ira McDonald X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: ipp@pwg.org, mfd@pwg.org Subject: [IPP] Re: [MFD] Comments on IPP Faxout Spec w/r SM FaxOut Service X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0931301766==" Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 4689979213.AAEA6 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org --===============0931301766== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340959f0151404d7596ace --14dae9340959f0151404d7596ace Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, Pete and I have both argued that RestartJob (terrible) and ReprocessJob (a subset of ResubmitJob) shouldn't be in the Semantic Model v2.0 (except for legacy Print Service). I don't want to put them in any IPP Multifunction services. ResubmitJob is necessary and is accounting-friendly. Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG 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 Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Michael Sweet wrote: > Bill, > > Sorry, finally getting a chance to read through this and respond... > > On Feb 24, 2013, at 4:50 PM, William A Wagner > wrote: > > In pursuing the question about the SM correlation to > Get-Printer-Suppported-Values in table 1, Operations for IPP FaxOut, there > appear to be several inconsistencies.**** > 1. ValidateFaxOutJob does not exist. ValidateFaxOutJobTicket is > probably intended. > > > Correct. > > **** > 2. I find no RestartFaxOutJob in either the SM FaxOut Service or > general SM Model. Does the make sense? There is a ResubmitFaxOutJob. > > > I believe IPP's Restart-Job was never brought into the Semantic Model > because of the accounting issues is causes. I can ban its use in FaxOut, > much like we've banned Print-Job and Print-URI, if people prefer... > > **** > 3. The SM FaxOut Service does not appear to differentiate > GetFaxOutJobElements from the general GetJobElements, which has an > important difference from IPP Get-Job-Attributes. Unlike the IPP > Get-Job-Attributes, the GetFaxOutJobElements request does not specify > individual Elements. Rather, the Client requests specific groups of > Elements contained within the Job. The allowed values for RequestedElements > are Job Receipt, Job Status, or Job Ticket. It is not clearly stated > whether the FaxOut follows the Common Semantics (presumably it must) or the > IPP printer approach. > > > I believe this is an artifact of the web services binding; IPP has > attribute groups that can be requested (job-template, job-description, > etc.) as well as individual named attributes, so I don't think this is an > issue. > > **** > 4. The SM FaxOut Service does not appear to differentiate > GetFaxOutServiceElements from the general GetServiceElements, > which has an important difference from IPP Get-Printer-Attributes. Unlike > the IPP Get-Printer-Attributes, the GetFaxOutServiceElements request does > not specify individual Elements. Rather, the Client requests specific > groups of Elements contained within the Job. The allowed values for > Requested Elements are Service Capabilities, Service Configuration, Service > Description, Service Status or DefaultJob Ticket. This distinction is not > clearly stated. > > > Same comment as for #3. > > **** > 5. As follows from item 4, the correlation to SM > Get-Printer-Supported-Values is GetFaxOutServiceElements with values of > Service Configuration, Service Description and Service Status (??) > > > No, there is a semantic difference. Get-Printer-Supported-Values returns > the original manufacturer xxx-supported values while Get-Printer-Attributes > returns the values as configured by the administrator of the printer - a > configuration utility would use Get-Printer-Supported-Values to get the > full set of values that can be configured and Get-Printer-Attributes to get > the currently configured values. > > What we'd need is (effectively) a DefaultConfiguration group in > the Semantic Model to provide the same information. > > **** > 6. Comment: - should the SM address subscriptions? > > > I think we need to for Cloud, at least. > > **** > 7. ReleaseHeldNewFaxOutJobs does not exist. ReleaseHeldFaxOutJobs ( no > 'new') is probably intended. > > > Correct. > > **** > 8. Deactivate and Activate were dropped from the SM model. Do we > really need these? > > > They are part of IPP already. > > **** > 9. It might be noted that Startup-Printer correlates to StartupService > (FaxOut) of the System Control Service. > > > Done. > > **** > 10. Neither the SM FaxOut nor Common Semantics include an operation > correlating to Reprocess-Job. It is not clear how this would act for FaxOut. > > > Same as for print I'd think - creates a new job as a copy of an existing > one. But ResubmitJob works that way and also accepts a new job ticket, > avoiding the race condition for supplying new values before the job starts > processing. > > Perhaps we should deprecate Reprocess-Job for IPP FaxOut and just have > Resubmit-Job? > > **** > 11. Schedule-Job-After correlates to PromoteFaxOutJob. If the predecessor > Job is specified, PromoteFaxOutJob acts the same way as the IPP > Schedule-Job-After operation. > > > Done. > > **** > 12. There is no CancelFaxOutDocument in the FaxOut Service just a > CancelFaxOutDocuments (note the 's') although the general semantics > operations is CancelDocument . Is this an error in the FaxOut > Service spec? > > > Probably. > > **** > 13. I find no IdentifyFaxOutService under FaxOut, Common Semantics or > System Control Service. Should this be added to the SM FaxOut Service (and > all other services) or perhaps to System Control Service? > > > It should be part of Common Semantics, with each service getting its own > IdentifyService operation. > > **** > 14. The FaxOut Service identifies the following operations that do not > appear in the IPP FaxOut spec:**** > a. ResubmitFaxOutJob**** > b. ValidateFaxOutDocumentTicket > > > Yes, for some reason I missed adding those two operations to the table. > Now added (for the next draft...) > > .... > > I'll hold off on publishing a new draft until we've had a chance to review > the current one, but perhaps we can discuss whether Restart-Job and > Reprocess-Job belong in IPP FaxOut, then the next draft will be that much > cleaner... > > Thanks! > > _________________________________________________________ > Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is > believed to be clean. > > _______________________________________________ > mfd mailing list > mfd@pwg.org > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --14dae9340959f0151404d7596ace Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

Pete and I have both argued that RestartJob (terrible) and
Re= processJob (a subset of ResubmitJob) shouldn't be in the
Semantic M= odel v2.0 (except for legacy Print Service).

I don't want to put= them in any IPP Multifunction services.

ResubmitJob is necessary and is accounting-friendly.

Cheers,
= - Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Archi= tect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO= Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solution= s WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert = - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthincmailto:bluer= oofmusic@gmail.com
Winter=A0 579 Park Place=A0 Saline, MI=A0 48176=A0 734-944-0094
Summer= =A0 PO Box 221=A0 Grand Marais, MI 49839=A0 906-494-2434



On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Michael= Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:
Bill,

Sorry, finally= getting a chance to read through this and respond...

On Feb 24, 2013, at 4:50 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner@comcast.ne= t> wrote:
In pursuing the question about=A0 the SM correlation to Get-Printer-Supppor= ted-Values in table 1, Operations for IPP FaxOut, there appear to be severa= l inconsistencies.
1.
2.=A0=A0=A0=A0I find no RestartFaxOutJob in either the SM FaxOut Servi= ce or general SM Model. Does the make sense? There is a ResubmitFaxOutJob.<= /div>

I believe IPP's Restart-J= ob was never brought into the Semantic Model because of the accounting issu= es is causes. =A0I can ban its use in FaxOut, much like we've banned Pr= int-Job and Print-URI, if people prefer...

3.=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The SM FaxOut Service does not appear to differentiat= e GetFaxOutJobElements from the general Get<service>JobElements, whic= h has an important difference from IPP Get-Job-Attributes. =A0Unlike the IP= P Get-Job-Attributes, the GetFaxOutJobElements request does not specify ind= ividual Elements. Rather, the Client requests specific groups of Elements c= ontained within the Job. The allowed values for RequestedElements are Job R= eceipt, Job Status, or Job Ticket. It is not clearly stated whether the Fax= Out follows the Common Semantics (presumably it must) or the IPP printer ap= proach.

I believe this is an artifact= of the web services binding; IPP has attribute groups that can be requeste= d (job-template, job-description, etc.) as well as individual named attribu= tes, so I don't think this is an issue.

=
4.=A0=A0=A0=A0= The SM FaxOut Service does not appear to differentiate GetFaxOutServiceElem= ents from the general Get<service>ServiceElements, which has an impor= tant difference from IPP Get-Printer-Attributes. Unlike the IPP Get-Printer= -Attributes, the GetFaxOutServiceElements request does not specify individu= al Elements. Rather, the Client requests specific groups of Elements contai= ned within the Job. The allowed values for Requested Elements are Service C= apabilities, Service Configuration, Service Description, Service Status or = DefaultJob Ticket. This distinction is not clearly stated.

Same comment as for #3.
=

5.=A0=A0=A0=A0As follows from item 4, the correlation to=A0 SM Get-Pri= nter-Supported-Values is GetFaxOutServiceElements with values of Service Co= nfiguration, Service Description and Service Status (??)

No, there is a semantic diffe= rence. =A0Get-Printer-Supported-Values returns the original manufacturer xx= x-supported values while Get-Printer-Attributes returns the values as confi= gured by the administrator of the printer - a configuration utility would u= se Get-Printer-Supported-Values to get the full set of values that can be c= onfigured and Get-Printer-Attributes to get the currently configured values= .

What we'd need is (effectively) a <service>De= faultConfiguration group in the Semantic Model to provide the same informat= ion.

6.=A0=A0=A0=A0Comment: - should the SM address subscriptions?

I think we need to for Cloud,= at least.

7.=A0=A0=A0=A0ReleaseHeldNewFaxOutJobs does not exist. ReleaseHeldFaxO= utJobs ( no 'new') is probably intended.

Correct.

8.=A0=A0=A0=A0Deactivate and Activate were dropped from the SM model. = Do we really need these?

They are part of IPP already.= =A0

9.=A0=A0=A0=A0It might be noted that Startup-Printer correlates to Sta= rtupService (FaxOut) of the System Control Service.

Done.

10.=A0<= /span>Neither the SM FaxOut nor Common Semantics include an operatio= n correlating to Reprocess-Job. It is not clear how this would act for FaxO= ut.

Same as for print I'd thi= nk - creates a new job as a copy of an existing one. =A0But ResubmitJob wor= ks that way and also accepts a new job ticket, avoiding the race condition = for supplying new values before the job starts processing.

Perhaps we should deprecate Reprocess-Job for IPP FaxOu= t and just have Resubmit-Job?

11.=A0<= /span>Schedule-Job-After correlates to PromoteFaxOutJob. If the pred= ecessor Job is specified, PromoteFaxOutJob acts the same way as the IPP Sch= edule-Job-After operation.

Done.

12.=A0<= /span>There is no CancelFaxOutDocument in the FaxOut Service just a = CancelFaxOutDocuments (note the 's') although the general semantics= operations is Cancel<service>Document . Is this an error in the FaxO= ut Service spec?

Probably.

13.=A0<= /span>I find no IdentifyFaxOutService under FaxOut, Common Semantics= or System Control Service. Should this be added to the SM FaxOut Service (= and all other services) or perhaps to System Control Service?

It should be part of Common S= emantics, with each service getting its own Identify<service>Service = operation.

14.=A0<= /span>The FaxOut Service identifies the following operations that do= not appear in the IPP FaxOut spec:
a.=A0=A0=A0=A0ResubmitFaxOutJob
b.=A0=A0=A0=A0ValidateFaxOutDocument= Ticket

Yes, for some reason I missed= adding those two operations to the table. Now added (for the next draft...= )

....

I'll hold off = on publishing a new draft until we've had a chance to review the curren= t one, but perhaps we can discuss whether Restart-Job and Reprocess-Job bel= ong in IPP FaxOut, then the next draft will be that much cleaner...

Thanks!

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet,= Senior Printing System=A0Engineer, PWG Chair


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
mfd mailing list
mfd@pwg.org
http= s://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd



--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --14dae9340959f0151404d7596ace-- --===============0931301766== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp --===============0931301766==-- From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Thu Mar 7 14:40:24 2013 Return-Path: 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 04DFB21F8AA1 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:40:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dDQWznB0KELn for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:40:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7749821F856F for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:40:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165A279234; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:40:00 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from mail-out.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.151.62.51]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA46B7921B; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:39:42 -0500 (EST) MIME-version: 1.0 Received: from relay17.apple.com ([17.128.113.18]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MJB00DB9AY5FDS0@mail-out.apple.com>; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:39:42 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11807112-b7f296d000001183-b6-513917295bd4 Received: from [17.153.102.219] (Unknown_Domain [17.153.102.219]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (AES128-SHA/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay17.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 1B.B0.04483.B2719315; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:39:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [IPP] [MFD] Comments on IPP Faxout Spec w/r SM FaxOut Service From: Michael Sweet In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:39:35 -0500 Message-id: References: <000001ce12d8$fc4c2e50$f4e48af0$@net> <0DC887B1-3420-4117-9A6D-8202733FF41F@apple.com> To: Ying Chen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1695) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiODPttq6uuGWgwYwPehavz3QzWRzb95LF Ymv/GSaLI99iLc5dUHRg9dh68gebx+THcxg9ds66y+4xb/F0pgCWKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6M x1veMRX88K34vO8vSwPjS8cuRk4OCQETiZ8rdjFD2GISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEpjOJLF2yx1GkISw gJfEup0tYEW8AnoS57YcYgWxmQUSJPZN3s0GYrMJqEn8ntQHFucUCJSY1noOKM7BwSKgIrFw pQZEuZfEvUsL2CHG2Eh0bW1kgti1nFHi+sR2RpB6EQFViRXLZSDukZX4cncC4wRGvllINs9C shnC1pZYtvA1M4StJ/Gy6R07priuxMV1kxgXMLKtYhQsSs1JrDQ010ssKMhJ1UvOz93ECArp hkKhHYz3d+kdYhTgYFTi4b24xSJQiDWxrLgy9xCjBAezkgjvXT7LQCHelMTKqtSi/Pii0pzU 4kOM0hwsSuK8O16bBgoJpCeWpGanphakFsFkmTg4pRoYHe023Tqeo93eofFLOcZ0k8psj2sX fsxS2pA6ZVLQna8T5hxI6b9Wu7mn9Zn+ofvL5B61+qwslRZafve3UYmA8Ox3OftFPadWKzLe auksK+Rumz8tf+qlJ4sjOtzYnfrbjVl702+92HNY9trExWXamsILlBbdThdsk/z3Rm7+nZD/ ArWtX5W6lFiKMxINtZiLihMBJP2rvGUCAAA= X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: ipp@pwg.org, mfd@pwg.org X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0056018579==" Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 165A279234.A9DC4 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org --===============0056018579== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_cg25L2TKz7y1WWa2UC+wWQ)" --Boundary_(ID_cg25L2TKz7y1WWa2UC+wWQ) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Nancy, On Mar 7, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Ying Chen wrote: > ... > 2. In Mike's response to #5, regarding Get-Printer-Supported-Values - > From rfc3380 page 1, "The Get-Printer-Supported-Values administrative operation returns values that the IPP Printer will accept for setting its "xxx-supported". Notice that this operation does not return any "xxx-supported" values that cannot be set by an administrator. Hence Mike is correct that "use Get-Printer-Supported-Values to get the full set of values that can be configured", but I did not see any semantic in rfc3380 that defines "Get-Printer-Supported-Values returns the original manufacturer xxx-supported values while Get-Printer-Attributes returns the values as configured by the administrator of the printer" as Mike said. RFC 3380 also defines Set-Printer-Attributes; from section 4.1: 5. The Printer MUST support the value, according to the rules defined in Appendix A, i.e., each value of each supplied "xxx" attribute MUST be validated against the value of a corresponding "xxx- supported" Printer attribute. One of those rules permits an administrator to set arbitrary 'name' values to those "xxx- supported" Printer attributes that include the 'name' attribute syntax if the implementation supports the 'admin-define' out-of- band value for that "xxx-supported" attribute (see section 8.3 and Appendix A). Section 4.3 talks about the differences between Get-Printer-Attributes and Get-Printer-Supported-Values, including: 3. The Get-Printer-Attributes operation returns the current values of requested attributes, while the Get-Printer-Supported-Values operation returns the values that are inherently supported by the implementation code, i.e., the values that an administrative client can set in a Set-Printer-Attributes request. 4. The Get-Printer-Attributes operation returns the current values of requested "xxx-supported" attributes that the Printer is configured to accept in Job Creation operations, including additional values defined by the administrator, while the Get- Printer-Supported-Values operation returns only the values of "xxx-supported" attributes that are inherently supported by the implementation and does not return any additional values defined by the administrator, where the implementation supports the 'admin-define' out-of-band value. > ... > Therefore, Mike is correct that there is no element in MFD SM that defines "the original manufacturer xxx-supported values". I think this set of values are very useful when there is a need to restore attributes to the manufacturer's defaults. But I don't see the IPP spec (rfc3380) has this set of attributes defined either. I'm interpreting "values inherently supported by the implementation" as the "manufacturer default values", but you are right technically the defaults might not include all values. Consider my wording changed accordingly to align with 3380's Get-Printer-Supported-Values terminology. We still don't have a way to get the full set of supported values for read/write elements in the Semantic Model... :/ _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --Boundary_(ID_cg25L2TKz7y1WWa2UC+wWQ) Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Nancy,

On Mar 7, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Ying Chen <chen.nancy5@gmail.com> wrote:
...
2.  In Mike'= s response to #5, regarding Get-Printer-Supported-Values -
From r= fc3380 page 1,  "The Get-Printer-Supported-Values administrative opera= tion returns values that the IPP Printer will accept for setting its "xxx-s= upported".  Notice that this operation does not return any "xxx-suppor= ted" values that cannot be set by an administrator.  Hence Mike is cor= rect that "use Get-Printer-Supported-Values to get the full set of values t= hat can be configured", but I did not see any semantic in rfc3380 that defi= nes "Get-Printer-Supported-Values returns the original manufacturer xxx-sup= ported values while Get-Printer-Attributes returns the values as configured= by the administrator of the printer" as Mike said.

RFC 3380 also defines Set-Printer-Attributes; from section = 4.1:

   5. The Printer MUST support= the value, according to the rules defined
      i= n Appendix A, i.e., each value of each supplied "xxx" attribute
&= nbsp;     MUST be validated against the value of a corresponding = "xxx-
      supported" Printer attribute.  On= e of those rules permits an
      administrator to= set arbitrary 'name' values to those "xxx-
      = supported" Printer attributes that include the 'name' attribute
&= nbsp;     syntax if the implementation supports the 'admin-define= ' out-of-
      band value for that "xxx-supported= " attribute (see section 8.3 and
      Appendix A)= .

Section 4.3 talks about the differences between = Get-Printer-Attributes and Get-Printer-Supported-Values, including:

   3. The Get-Print=
er-Attributes operation returns the current values of
      requested attributes, while the Get-Printer-Supported-Values
      operation returns the values that are inherently supported by the
      implementation code, i.e., the values that an administrative
      client can set in a Set-Printer-Attributes request.

   4. The Get-Printer-Attributes operation returns the current values of
      requested "xxx-supported" attributes that the Printer is
      configured to accept in Job Creation operations, including
      additional values defined by the administrator, while the Get-
      Printer-Supported-Values operation returns only the values of
      "xxx-supported" attributes that are inherently supported by the
      implementation and does not return any additional values defined
      by the administrator, where the implementation supports the
      'admin-define' out-of-band value.

.= ..
T= herefore, Mike is correct that there is no element in MFD SM that defines "= the original manufacturer xxx-supported values".  I think this set of = values are very useful when there is a need to restore <service> attr= ibutes to the manufacturer's defaults.  But I don't see the IPP spec (= rfc3380) has this set of attributes defined either.

I'm interpreting "values inherently supported by the implem= entation" as the "manufacturer default values", but you are right technical= ly the defaults might not include all values. Consider my wording changed a= ccordingly to align with 3380's Get-Printer-Supported-Values terminology. &= nbsp;We still don't have a way to get the full set of supported values for = read/write elements in the Semantic Model... :/
______________________= ___________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing Syste= m Engineer, PWG Chair


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --Boundary_(ID_cg25L2TKz7y1WWa2UC+wWQ)-- --===============0056018579== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp --===============0056018579==-- From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Sat Mar 9 14:50:45 2013 Return-Path: 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 2D97221F8790 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 14:50:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L1Ye9GBBHiRU for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 14:50:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB4A21F8771 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 14:50:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12B9791AA; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 17:49:33 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.16]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF2D791A2 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 17:49:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.90]) by qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 9aYA1l00A1wpRvQ51ap50b; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 22:49:05 +0000 Received: from lenovo ([98.216.178.129]) by omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 9an41l0022ntzM63ean409; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 22:47:05 +0000 From: "William A Wagner" To: , References: <000001ce12d8$fc4c2e50$f4e48af0$@net> <0DC887B1-3420-4117-9A6D-8202733FF41F@apple.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [IPP] Re: [MFD] Comments on IPP Faxout Spec w/r SM FaxOut Service Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 17:47:04 -0500 Message-ID: <000001ce1d18$05c4d790$114e86b0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac4bgKlF9rU5crMwQJaAEu1k9R8eEgAz1NWQ Content-Language: en-us DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1362869345; bh=Lb542rDuY6leE9o5QgMkF21x3qL0pNZrsjKv0aM/gYQ=; h=Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=ADs/YqkN0mAjj8PWdCXIejuKNU8zvA6RzlpjoqmunorbsAmunrjz98rXT3yX1imeU SYcVlGOjsBUyBtKsH8Hy3k2GjlD2cBe7J3xeUMEAs2HY/34DOuTyLF3kopMr5aGmNU QZX8Qtmc/+5vYovXO6G3TgoWeHyXHK5l/5S1MuC2X/xkyLNm7hMl82LXE/SSKTXzgX ZYqMiS7NTY5TT5sNdSh0QcO9s5Eq9K1G0UaxK7LlJ1Y/f66SOiZKufqOF3jSRIBNUR FE2xhL7hhwrzN4zVqv1B8FK45TU0bqrWE75jKhgnx45nYNBYfYDflqW/cOOumoZQ0a c4cm7Q43RtaBw== X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: 'Ying Chen' X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1153382931==" Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: B12B9791AA.AAC4B X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1153382931== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01CE1CEE.1CEECF90" Content-Language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01CE1CEE.1CEECF90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, This discussion is exposing several issues and questions. I suggest that there should be some consideration of these in the SM meeting as well. 1. Since the PWG has an approved candidate standard that Nancy suggests does not agree with the current schema, which takes precedence? I suggest that any SM change must be reflected in an errata in the Common Model or specific Service candidate standard, as appropriate. 2. Has the GetServiceElements operation requested elements actually been changed? The Common Model indicates that "Some Services may accept an additional argument in a GetServiceElements request to further filter the response. The individual Service specifications identify such arguments if any, their effect and whether support is mandatory." My interpretation of this is that the Common Model allows the distinction between the SM and IPP operations to be eliminated for a specific Service if the Service Specification so mandates. I do not see this mandate in the FaxOut Service Specification. Should it be there? 3. In regard to GetFaxOutServiceElements and GetFaxJobElements as well as other operations (e.g., Activate and Deactivate), the proposed IPP FaxOut binding appears to follow IPP Printing rather than the SM FaxOut specification. (i.e., although the IPP binding may allow specifying groups, it is mandated in the SM) Is this divergence valid? Or, if the differences are necessary, should the SM FaxOut specification be updated? And if this update violates the Common Model, should that be updated? Essentially, should we be consistent among our standards? 4. Returning to the issue of desired capability, I may have gotten lost, but it appears that three levels of Service capabilities are desired. Is this correct? a. Currently configured, provided by Get-Printer-Attributes and (perhaps) by GetFaxOutServiceElements b. Values that the implementation allows an administrator to configure, provided by Get-Printer-Supported-Values ( I find RFC 3380, 4.3, para 4 totally confusing and suggest that clarification is in order) c. The "original manufacturer xxx-supported values", which depending upon ones interpretation, may not be provided by IPP. The term "default" in the discussion is unclear. Is the interest in manufacturer default configuration (why?) or the 'out-of-box' capabilities that an administrator could configure? 5. So, whether or not IPP provides it in Get-Printer-Supported-Values (which seems to depend upon the implementer's interpretation), it is desired to include in the FaxOut SM a capability to get the full set of supported values for read/write elements. Although some clarification is necessary, I think that GetServiceElements/Capabilities may provide this, as distinguished from GetServiceElements/Configuration which would correlate with Get-Printer-Attributes. 6. Finally, in addition to the potentially new GetServiceSupportedElements operation (or whatever to call it) to be added to the FaxOut (and probably other Service SM) specifications, the discussion suggested that the SM group add the following: a. Handling of subscriptions b. IdentifyService From: Ying Chen [mailto:chen.nancy5@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:09 PM To: Michael Sweet Cc: William A Wagner; ipp@pwg.org; mfd@pwg.org Subject: Re: [IPP] Re: [MFD] Comments on IPP Faxout Spec w/r SM FaxOut Service Mike and Bill, I'd like to point out two things: 1. In Bill's #4 regarding SM GetFaxOutServiceElements request, it stated that "the allowed values for Requested Elements are Service Capabilities, Service Configuration, Service Description, Service Status or DefaultJob Ticket." These are what specified in the current MFD Common SM 2.0 spec. However the MFD Schema has evolved since. The Requested Elements can be any element in the service. But for operational efficiency, it is recommended to get a larger group element. I think the MFD Common Semantic Model should be updated accordingly. 2. In Mike's response to #5, regarding Get-Printer-Supported-Values - >From rfc3380 page 1, "The Get-Printer-Supported-Values administrative operation returns values that the IPP Printer will accept for setting its "xxx-supported". Notice that this operation does not return any "xxx-supported" values that cannot be set by an administrator. Hence Mike is correct that "use Get-Printer-Supported-Values to get the full set of values that can be configured", but I did not see any semantic in rfc3380 that defines "Get-Printer-Supported-Values returns the original manufacturer xxx-supported values while Get-Printer-Attributes returns the values as configured by the administrator of the printer" as Mike said. In MFD SM, "xxx-supported" attributes are defined in the "ServiceCapabilities" group element, each elements in this group most of times is either a list of keywords or a range of values between a Lowerbound and Upperbound elements representing the allowed values for the xxx-supported attribute, or a boolean representing whether an attributed is supported or not. There is a xxx-supported value for every JobTicket element and every JobDocument element. For example, the JobHoldUntil element in JobTicketCapabilities is a list of keywords: "DayTime" "Evening" "Indefinite" "Night" ...etc, the Priority element has a Lowerbound and Upperbound sub-elements of integer type. All Capabilities elements in MFD SM are settable by Admin. Therefore, Mike is correct that there is no element in MFD SM that defines "the original manufacturer xxx-supported values". I think this set of values are very useful when there is a need to restore attributes to the manufacturer's defaults. But I don't see the IPP spec (rfc3380) has this set of attributes defined either. -Nancy ------------------------------------------- Nancy Chen Independent contributor, PWG Vice-Chair On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Michael Sweet wrote: Bill, Sorry, finally getting a chance to read through this and respond... On Feb 24, 2013, at 4:50 PM, William A Wagner wrote: In pursuing the question about the SM correlation to Get-Printer-Suppported-Values in table 1, Operations for IPP FaxOut, there appear to be several inconsistencies. 1. ValidateFaxOutJob does not exist. ValidateFaxOutJobTicket is probably intended. Correct. 2. I find no RestartFaxOutJob in either the SM FaxOut Service or general SM Model. Does the make sense? There is a ResubmitFaxOutJob. I believe IPP's Restart-Job was never brought into the Semantic Model because of the accounting issues is causes. I can ban its use in FaxOut, much like we've banned Print-Job and Print-URI, if people prefer... 3. The SM FaxOut Service does not appear to differentiate GetFaxOutJobElements from the general GetJobElements, which has an important difference from IPP Get-Job-Attributes. Unlike the IPP Get-Job-Attributes, the GetFaxOutJobElements request does not specify individual Elements. Rather, the Client requests specific groups of Elements contained within the Job. The allowed values for RequestedElements are Job Receipt, Job Status, or Job Ticket. It is not clearly stated whether the FaxOut follows the Common Semantics (presumably it must) or the IPP printer approach. I believe this is an artifact of the web services binding; IPP has attribute groups that can be requested (job-template, job-description, etc.) as well as individual named attributes, so I don't think this is an issue. 4. The SM FaxOut Service does not appear to differentiate GetFaxOutServiceElements from the general GetServiceElements, which has an important difference from IPP Get-Printer-Attributes. Unlike the IPP Get-Printer-Attributes, the GetFaxOutServiceElements request does not specify individual Elements. Rather, the Client requests specific groups of Elements contained within the Job. The allowed values for Requested Elements are Service Capabilities, Service Configuration, Service Description, Service Status or DefaultJob Ticket. This distinction is not clearly stated. Same comment as for #3. 5. As follows from item 4, the correlation to SM Get-Printer-Supported-Values is GetFaxOutServiceElements with values of Service Configuration, Service Description and Service Status (??) No, there is a semantic difference. Get-Printer-Supported-Values returns the original manufacturer xxx-supported values while Get-Printer-Attributes returns the values as configured by the administrator of the printer - a configuration utility would use Get-Printer-Supported-Values to get the full set of values that can be configured and Get-Printer-Attributes to get the currently configured values. What we'd need is (effectively) a DefaultConfiguration group in the Semantic Model to provide the same information. 6. Comment: - should the SM address subscriptions? I think we need to for Cloud, at least. 7. ReleaseHeldNewFaxOutJobs does not exist. ReleaseHeldFaxOutJobs ( no 'new') is probably intended. Correct. 8. Deactivate and Activate were dropped from the SM model. Do we really need these? They are part of IPP already. 9. It might be noted that Startup-Printer correlates to StartupService (FaxOut) of the System Control Service. Done. 10. Neither the SM FaxOut nor Common Semantics include an operation correlating to Reprocess-Job. It is not clear how this would act for FaxOut. Same as for print I'd think - creates a new job as a copy of an existing one. But ResubmitJob works that way and also accepts a new job ticket, avoiding the race condition for supplying new values before the job starts processing. Perhaps we should deprecate Reprocess-Job for IPP FaxOut and just have Resubmit-Job? 11. Schedule-Job-After correlates to PromoteFaxOutJob. If the predecessor Job is specified, PromoteFaxOutJob acts the same way as the IPP Schedule-Job-After operation. Done. 12. There is no CancelFaxOutDocument in the FaxOut Service just a CancelFaxOutDocuments (note the 's') although the general semantics operations is CancelDocument . Is this an error in the FaxOut Service spec? Probably. 13. I find no IdentifyFaxOutService under FaxOut, Common Semantics or System Control Service. Should this be added to the SM FaxOut Service (and all other services) or perhaps to System Control Service? It should be part of Common Semantics, with each service getting its own IdentifyService operation. 14. The FaxOut Service identifies the following operations that do not appear in the IPP FaxOut spec: a. ResubmitFaxOutJob b. ValidateFaxOutDocumentTicket Yes, for some reason I missed adding those two operations to the table. Now added (for the next draft...) .... I'll hold off on publishing a new draft until we've had a chance to review the current one, but perhaps we can discuss whether Restart-Job and Reprocess-Job belong in IPP FaxOut, then the next draft will be that much cleaner... Thanks! _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp -- Nancy Chen -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01CE1CEE.1CEECF90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello All,

This discussion is exposing several issues  and quest= ions. I suggest that there should be some consideration of these in the SM = meeting as well.

1.=      = Since the PWG has an approved candidate standard that= Nancy suggests does not agree with the current schema, which takes precede= nce? I suggest that any  SM change must be reflected in an errata in t= he Common Model or specific Service candidate standard, as appropriate.

2.       Has the G= et<service>ServiceElements  operation requested elements actuall= y been changed? The Common Model indicates that “Some Services may accept an additio= nal argument in a Get<service>ServiceElements request to further filt= er the response… The individual Service specifications identify such = arguments if any, their effect and whether support is mandatory.” &nb= sp;My interpretation of this is that the Common Model allows the distinctio= n between the SM and IPP operations to be eliminated for a specific Service= if the Service Specification so mandates. I do not see this mandate in the= FaxOut Service Specification. Should it be there?

3.      In r= egard to GetFaxOu= tServiceElements and GetFaxJobElements as well as other operations (e.g., A= ctivate and Deactivate), the proposed IPP FaxOut  binding  appear= s to follow IPP Printing rather than the SM FaxOut specification. (i.e., al= though  the IPP binding may allow specifying groups, it is mandated in= the SM) Is this divergence valid? Or, if the differences are necessary, sh= ould the SM FaxOut specification be updated? And if this update violates the C= ommon Model, should that be updated? Essentially, should we be consistent a= mong our standards?

4.  =     Returning to the issue of  des= ired capability, I may have gotten lost, but it appears that three levels o= f Service capabilities are desired. Is this correct?

<= p class=3DMsoListParagraph style=3D'margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;ms= o-list:l1 level2 lfo2'>a.      Currently configured,  provided by Get-Printer-Attributes and (perhaps= ) by GetFaxOutSer= viceElements

b. = ;     Values that the implementati= on allows an administrator to configure, provided by Get-Printer-Supported-Values ( I find <= /span>RFC 3380, 4.3, par= a 4 totally confusing and suggest that clarification is in order)

c.    &nb= sp;  The “original manufacturer xxx-supported values", = which depending upon ones interpretation, may not be provided by IPP. The t= erm “default” in the discussion is  unclear. Is the intere= st in manufacturer default configuration (why?)  or the ‘out-of-= box’ capabilities that an administrator could configure?

5.      So, whether or not IPP provides  it in Get-Printer-Supported-Values (which seems to= depend upon the implementer’s interpretation), it is desired to incl= ude in the FaxOut SM a capability to get the full set of supported values for read/write ele= ments.  Although some clarification is necessary, I think that = Get<service>Servic= eElements/Capabilities may  provide this, as distinguished from Get<= ;service>ServiceElements/Configuration which would correlate with Get-Pr= inter-Attributes.

6.   = ;   Finally, in addition to the potentially new Get<ser= vice>ServiceSupportedElements operation (or whatever to call it) to be a= dded to the FaxOut (and probably other Service SM) specifications,  th= e discussion  suggested that the SM group add the following:

a.    &nb= sp; Handling of subscriptions

b.      Identify<servic= e>Service

 

=  

 

From: Ying Chen [mailto:chen.nancy5@gmail.com]
Sent: Thur= sday, March 07, 2013 5:09 PM
To: Michael Sweet
Cc: Will= iam A Wagner; ipp@pwg.org; mfd@pwg.org
Subject: Re: [IPP] Re: [MFD] Co= mments on IPP Faxout Spec w/r SM FaxOut Service

=

 

Mike and Bil= l,

 

=

I'd like to point out two things:

=

 

1.  In Bill's #4 regarding SM GetFaxOutServiceElements request, it= stated that "the all= owed values for Requested Elements are Service Capabilities, Service Config= uration, Service Description, Service Status or DefaultJob Ticket." &n= bsp;These are what specified in the current MFD Common SM 2.0 spec.  H= owever the MFD Schema has evolved since.  The Requested Elements can b= e any element in the service.  But for operational efficiency, it is r= ecommended to get a larger group element.

<= p class=3DMsoNormal> 

&n= bsp;     I think the MFD Common Semantic Model should be updated = accordingly.

 

2.  In Mike's response to #5, reg= arding Get-Printer-Supported-Values -

From rfc3380 page 1,  "The Get-Printer-Supported-Values = administrative operation returns values that the IPP Printer will accept fo= r setting its "xxx-supported".  Notice that this operation d= oes not return any "xxx-supported" values that cannot be set by a= n administrator.  Hence Mike is correct that "use Get-Printer-Sup= ported-Values to get the full set of values that can be configured", b= ut I did not see any semantic in rfc3380 that defines "Get-Printer-Sup= ported-Values returns the original manufacturer xxx-supported values while = Get-Printer-Attributes returns the values as configured by the administrato= r of the printer" as Mike said.

 

In MFD SM, &qu= ot;xxx-supported" attributes are defined in the "<service>S= erviceCapabilities" group element, each elements in this group most of= times is either a list of keywords or a range of values between a Lowerbou= nd and Upperbound elements representing the allowed values for the xxx-supp= orted attribute, or a boolean representing whether an attributed is support= ed or not.  There is a xxx-supported value for every <service>Jo= bTicket element and every <service>JobDocument element.  For exa= mple, the JobHoldUntil element in JobTicketCapabilities is a list of keywor= ds: "DayTime" "Evening" "Indefinite" "Ni= ght" ...etc, the Priority element has a Lowerbound and Upperbound sub-= elements of integer type.  All Capabilities elements in MFD SM are set= table by Admin.

 

Therefore, Mike is correct that the= re is no element in MFD SM that defines "the original manufacturer xxx= -supported values".  I think this set of values are very useful w= hen there is a need to restore <service> attributes to the manufactur= er's defaults.  But I don't see the IPP spec (rfc3380) has this set of= attributes defined either.

<= o:p> 

-Nancy

-------------------------------------------

Nancy Chen

Independent contributor, PWG Vice-Chair

 

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:

Bill,

 

Sorry, finally= getting a chance to read through this and respond...

<= div>

 

On Feb 24, 2013, at 4:50 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner@comcast.net> wrot= e:

In pursuing the question about  the SM correlation to= Get-Printer-Suppported-Values in table 1, Operations for IPP FaxOut, there= appear to be several inconsistencies.

1.  &nbs= p; ValidateFax= OutJob  does not exist. ValidateFaxOutJobTicket is probably intended.<= o:p>

 

Correct.

 

<= blockquote style=3D'margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>

2.  &n= bsp; I find no= RestartFaxOutJob in either the SM FaxOut Service or general SM Model. Does= the make sense? There is a ResubmitFaxOutJob.

<= /div>

 

I believe IPP's Restart-Job was never brought = into the Semantic Model because of the accounting issues is causes.  I= can ban its use in FaxOut, much like we've banned Print-Job and Print-URI,= if people prefer...

&nb= sp;

3.     The SM FaxOut Service does not appear to differe= ntiate GetFaxOutJobElements from the general Get<service>JobElements,= which has an important difference from IPP Get-Job-Attributes.  Unlik= e the IPP Get-Job-Attributes, the GetFaxOutJobElements request does not spe= cify individual Elements. Rather, the Client requests specific groups of El= ements contained within the Job. The allowed values for RequestedElements a= re Job Receipt, Job Status, or Job Ticket. It is not clearly stated whether= the FaxOut follows the Common Semantics (presumably it must) or the IPP pr= inter approach.

 

I = believe this is an artifact of the web services binding; IPP has attribute = groups that can be requested (job-template, job-description, etc.) as well = as individual named attributes, so I don't think this is an issue.



4. =    T= he SM FaxOut Service does not appear to differentiate GetFaxOutServiceEleme= nts from the general Get<service>ServiceElements, which has an import= ant difference from IPP Get-Printer-Attributes. Unlike the IPP Get-Printer-= Attributes, the GetFaxOutServiceElements request does not specify individua= l Elements. Rather, the Client requests specific groups of Elements contain= ed within the Job. The allowed values for Requested Elements are Service Ca= pabilities, Service Configuration, Service Description, Service Status or D= efaultJob Ticket. This distinction is not clearly stated.=

 

=

Same comment as for #3.



5.   &nbs= p;As follows from i= tem 4, the correlation to  SM Get-Printer-Supported-Values is GetFaxOu= tServiceElements with values of Service Configuration, Service Description = and Service Status (??)

 

No, the= re is a semantic difference.  Get-Printer-Supported-Values returns the= original manufacturer xxx-supported values while Get-Printer-Attributes re= turns the values as configured by the administrator of the printer - a conf= iguration utility would use Get-Printer-Supported-Values to get the full se= t of values that can be configured and Get-Printer-Attributes to get the cu= rrently configured values.

 

What we'd need is (effec= tively) a <service>DefaultConfiguration group in the Semantic Model t= o provide the same information.



6.    Comment: - should the SM address sub= scriptions?

 

I think we need to = for Cloud, at least.


7.    ReleaseHeldNewFaxOutJobs does not exist. Releas= eHeldFaxOutJobs ( no 'new') is probably intended.

 

Correct.



8.    Deactivate and Activate were dropped fro= m the SM model. Do we really need these?

<= /div>

 

They are part of IPP already.  



9.    It might be noted tha= t Startup-Printer correlates to StartupService (FaxOut) of the System Contr= ol Service.

 

Done.



10. Neither the SM FaxOut n= or Common Semantics include an operation correlating to Reprocess-Job. It i= s not clear how this would act for FaxOut.

 

Same as for print I'd think - creates a new job as a copy of a= n existing one.  But ResubmitJob works that way and also accepts a new= job ticket, avoiding the race condition for supplying new values before th= e job starts processing.

 

Perhaps we should deprecat= e Reprocess-Job for IPP FaxOut and just have Resubmit-Job?



11. = Schedule-Job-After correla= tes to PromoteFaxOutJob. If the predecessor Job is specified, PromoteFaxOut= Job acts the same way as the IPP Schedule-Job-After operation.

 

<= /div>

Done.

 

12. There is no CancelFaxOutDocument in the FaxOut Service= just a CancelFaxOutDocuments (note the 's') although the general semantics= operations is Cancel<service>Document . Is this an error in the FaxO= ut Service spec?

<= p class=3DMsoNormal> 

P= robably.



13. I= find no IdentifyFaxOutService under FaxOut, Common Semantics or System Con= trol Service. Should this be added to the SM FaxOut Service (and all other = services) or perhaps to System Control Service?

=

 

It should be part of Common Semantics, with each service g= etting its own Identify<service>Service operation.



14. The FaxOut Service identifie= s the following operations that do not appear in the IPP FaxOut spec:<= /o:p>

a.    ResubmitFaxOutJob

b.  &nb= sp; ValidateFa= xOutDocumentTicket

 

Yes, for som= e reason I missed adding those two operations to the table. Now added (for = the next draft...)

 = ;

....

 

I'l= l hold off on publishing a new draft until we've had a chance to review the= current one, but perhaps we can discuss whether Restart-Job and Reprocess-= Job belong in IPP FaxOut, then the next draft will be that much cleaner...<= o:p>

 

Thanks!

 

______________________= ___________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing Syste= m Engineer, PWG Chair

 


--
This = message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner,= and is
believed to be clean.


_________________________________= ______________
ipp mailing list
ipp@pw= g.org
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>

 

--
Nancy Chen


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01CE1CEE.1CEECF90-- --===============1153382931== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp --===============1153382931==-- From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Sun Mar 10 16:50:13 2013 Return-Path: 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 485D521F8706 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:50:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7TWxyOOvVYLL for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3213521F8640 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9CFA791D1; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:49:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from mail-ia0-f178.google.com (mail-ia0-f178.google.com [209.85.210.178]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B52791AB for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:49:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ia0-f178.google.com with SMTP id o25so3007460iad.37 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:49:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=C7P1DahZi7a7/tUrJV+nS3iK6Zs1ljq/aOkW9D1xss4=; b=oOuodLeysPMp8+dboix1SgEl6381yMN5yCibePTb4fqV5qv84+u0s12omrIvCGYo9a hPpETBC+QRuTEKVHLwNE2tocwPXHHh77cWDLS0x3VMQpTLnZzvY+s2Yreolqa96i+mtp GbtuFP7MbkdktRlJOXV16JkCqKraAC9qzQmVXgiYJm65bwRmnzQuIqfAy6makb2GWN4F YWmwklvcmIsUqpQ+73lshbzntc4g2AxDRdMv6AcZwa+CwJICHMh7TS/xAROG++ILaDmN m7SglOZOqIwZbRuPc1/b6LSXyCwU5ATktiJMOxNa8g+z8SS+F3VcQTlGrTIdhS5mDjWf SEIw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.145.137 with SMTP id f9mr7025506icv.52.1362959373716; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.159.232 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:49:33 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ira McDonald To: ipp@pwg.org, Ira McDonald X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: Subject: [IPP] IPP Agenda - 3-5pm Eastern 11 March 2013 X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0987111276==" Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: B9CFA791D1.A9A67 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org --===============0987111276== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8b5050572a04d79ab5c3 --90e6ba6e8b5050572a04d79ab5c3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, Our next IPP WG call will be this Monday! Monday 11 March 12-2pm US Pacific / 3-5pm US Eastern Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239 Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300 (Primary) Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570 (Backup) Attendee Access Code: *******# Attendee ID Code: # (empty) ------------------------------------------------------- Meeting information ------------------------------------------------------- Date: Every Monday, from Monday, July 9, 2012 to no end date Time: 12:00 pm, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco) Meeting Number: 624 587 312 Meeting Password: pwg123 ------------------------------------------------------- To start or join the online meeting ------------------------------------------------------- Go to https://appleinc.webex.com/appleinc/j.php?ED=204995427&UID=504472682&PW=NNzM5MmRlMzBl&RT=MiM0 ------------------------------------------------------- Agenda: (1) PWG IP Policy and Minute Taker - Mike? (2) Approve IPP minutes from previous meeting - ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-concall-minutes-20130225.pdf -- IPP WG call on 25 February (3) Status of PWG Formal Vote on MSN2 (ends on 28 March) - ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-pwgmsn20-20130125-rev.pdf (4) Status of IPP FaxOut (Mike) - ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippfaxout10-20130227-rev.pdf (5) Discussion of IPP Everywhere Self-Certification (Mike) - http://www.pwg.org/archives/ipp/2013/016049.html (6) Next steps - IPP WG teleconference on Monday 25 March - IPP WG teleconference on Monday 8 April Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG 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 Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --90e6ba6e8b5050572a04d79ab5c3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

Our next IPP WG call will= be this Monday!

Monday 11 March 12-2pm US Pacific / 3-5pm US Easter= n

Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300 (Primary)
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570 (Backup)

Attendee A= ccess Code: *******#
Attendee ID Code: # (empty)

--= -----------------------------------------------------
Meeting information
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Every Monday, from Monday, July 9, 2012 to no end date
Time: 12:= 00 pm, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco)
Meeting Number: 624 587 312=
Meeting Password: pwg123
-----------------------------------------------= --------
To start or join the online meeting
------------------------= -------------------------------
Go to https://appleinc.webex.com/appleinc/j.ph= p?ED=3D204995427&UID=3D504472682&PW=3DNNzM5MmRlMzBl&RT=3DMiM0
-------------------------------------------------------

Agenda:
(1) PWG IP Policy and Minute Taker- Mike?

(2) Approve IPP minu= tes from previous meeting
- ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-c= oncall-minutes-20130225.pdf
-- IPP WG call= on 25 February

(3) Status of PWG Formal Vote on MSN2 (ends on 28 March)
- ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-p= wgmsn20-20130125-rev.pdf

(4) Status of IPP FaxOut (Mike)
- ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippfaxout10-20130227-rev.p= df

(5) Discussion of IPP Everywhere Self-Certification (Mike)
<= span class=3D"il">
- http://www.p= wg.org/archives/ipp/2013/016049.html

(6) Next steps
- IPP WG teleconference on Monday 25 March
- IPP WG teleconference on Monday 8 April

Cheers,
- Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician / Softwar= e Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IE= EE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chai= r - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP &a= mp; Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthincmailto:bluer= oofmusic@gmail.com
Winter=A0 579 Park Place=A0 Saline, MI=A0 48176=A0 734-944-0094
Summer= =A0 PO Box 221=A0 Grand Marais, MI 49839=A0 906-494-2434


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --90e6ba6e8b5050572a04d79ab5c3-- --===============0987111276== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp --===============0987111276==-- From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Sun Mar 10 20:19:07 2013 Return-Path: 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 5978321F8959 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:19:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AxrYFv08GFuK for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B0A21F8952 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB247791E4; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 23:18:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from mail-out.apple.com (honeycrisp.apple.com [17.151.62.51]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 600C4791D3 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 23:18:26 -0400 (EDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Received: from relay6.apple.com ([17.128.113.90]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MJH00IL57UPXE81@mail-out.apple.com> for ipp@pwg.org; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:18:26 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1180715a-b7f566d000006daa-8b-513d4d00e793 Received: from [17.153.43.111] (Unknown_Domain [17.153.43.111]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay6.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 60.3E.28074.10D4D315; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [IPP] IPP Agenda - 3-5pm Eastern 11 March 2013 From: Michael Sweet In-reply-to: Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 23:18:31 -0400 Message-id: References: To: Ira McDonald X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiOFM7X5fJ1zbQoEPQ4vWrpewWx/a9ZLE4 8i3Wgdlj68kfbB47Z91l95i3eDpTAHMUl01Kak5mWWqRvl0CV8bJ5j1MBQeCKma/2MnawLjK s4uRk0NCwERi4cVpbBC2mMSFe+uBbC4OIYFeJonWu4dZQBLCAtYSk/ZPYAKxeQX0JK59+8re xcjBwSyQIPGszQ8kzCagJvF7Uh8rSJhTIFCi+7QoSJhFQFXi4YwHrCA2swC/xMHeD8wQU2wk luz4DzZRSCBAYuXGH0wgrSICWhJLnitCXCMr8fr5G5YJjHyzkOydhbB3FthQbYllC18zQ9h6 Ei+b3rFjiutKXFw3iXEBI9sqRoGi1JzESjO9xIKCnFS95PzcTYygYG0ojNrB2LDc6hCjAAej Eg/vBB3bQCHWxLLiytxDjBIczEoivCs32QQK8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES531pC1Qt kJ5YkpqdmlqQWgSTZeLglGpg7PkUW5hZwRuc1cRaIWv0w/5lpKfSRuO36RohEjveBE9LUU9U Yu5c8WWji5tZcXBHw/HAvhjDQysYX8tm71Ja97hlp0TV2+O75qdFq375EjlP1/bseRFlGcEj Vka/Jjy+6Fz4KOLJyjSX6dmzLzK4yC9b33HU5ECQyh3FOYHXIvdZJZQaVdQrsRRnJBpqMRcV JwIA6/XCHFICAAA= X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: ipp@pwg.org X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1984652658==" Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: CB247791E4.A9818 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org --===============1984652658== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_7ROduESnR3SD11jN93HICg)" --Boundary_(ID_7ROduESnR3SD11jN93HICg) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT All, I have uploaded some slides and a (very very) initial draft of a self-certification manual to: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/slides/ipp-self-certification-20130310.pdf ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/whitepaper/tb-ippeveselfcert10-20130310.docx ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/whitepaper/tb-ippeveselfcert10-20130310.pdf On 2013-03-10, at 7:49 PM, Ira McDonald wrote: > Hi, > > Our next IPP WG call will be this Monday! > > Monday 11 March 12-2pm US Pacific / 3-5pm US Eastern > > Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239 > Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300 (Primary) > Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570 (Backup) > > Attendee Access Code: *******# > Attendee ID Code: # (empty) > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Meeting information > ------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Every Monday, from Monday, July 9, 2012 to no end date > Time: 12:00 pm, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco) > Meeting Number: 624 587 312 > Meeting Password: pwg123 > ------------------------------------------------------- > To start or join the online meeting > ------------------------------------------------------- > Go to https://appleinc.webex.com/appleinc/j.php?ED=204995427&UID=504472682&PW=NNzM5MmRlMzBl&RT=MiM0 > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Agenda: > (1) PWG IP Policy and Minute Taker > - Mike? > > (2) Approve IPP minutes from previous meeting > - ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-concall-minutes-20130225.pdf > -- IPP WG call on 25 February > > (3) Status of PWG Formal Vote on MSN2 (ends on 28 March) > - ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-pwgmsn20-20130125-rev.pdf > > (4) Status of IPP FaxOut (Mike) > - ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippfaxout10-20130227-rev.pdf > > (5) Discussion of IPP Everywhere Self-Certification (Mike) > > - http://www.pwg.org/archives/ipp/2013/016049.html > > (6) Next steps > - IPP WG teleconference on Monday 25 March > - IPP WG teleconference on Monday 8 April > > Cheers, > - Ira > > > Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) > Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG > Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group > Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG > Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG > Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG > 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 > Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 > Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ > ipp mailing list > ipp@pwg.org > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --Boundary_(ID_7ROduESnR3SD11jN93HICg) Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable All,

I have uploaded some slides and a (very very) initial draft of a self-cert= ification manual to:


On 2013-03= -10, at 7:49 PM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

Our next IPP WG call will be this Monday!

Monday 11 Mar= ch 12-2pm US Pacific / 3-5pm US Eastern

Call-in toll-free number (US= /Canada): 1-866-469-3239
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300 (Primary)
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570 (Backup)

Attendee A= ccess Code: *******#
Attendee ID Code: # (empty)

--= -----------------------------------------------------
Meeting information
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Every Monday, from Monday, July 9, 2012 to no end date
Time: 12:= 00 pm, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco)
Meeting Number: 624 587 312=
Meeting Password: pwg123
-----------------------------------------------= --------
To start or join the online meeting
------------------------= -------------------------------
Go to https://appleinc.webex.com/appleinc/j.ph= p?ED=3D204995427&UID=3D504472682&PW=3DNNzM5MmRlMzBl&RT=3DMiM0
-------------------------------------------------------

Agenda= :
(1) PWG IP Policy and Minute Taker
- Mike?

(2) Approv= e IPP minutes from previous meeting
- ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-c= oncall-minutes-20130225.pdf
-- IPP WG call= on 25 February

(3) Status of PWG Formal Vote on MSN2 (ends on 28 March)
- ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-p= wgmsn20-20130125-rev.pdf

(4) Status of IPP FaxOut (Mike)
- ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippfaxout10-20130227-rev.p= df

(5) Discussion of IPP Everywhere Self-Certification (Mike)
<= span class=3D"il">
- http://www.p= wg.org/archives/ipp/2013/016049.html

(6) Next steps
- IPP WG teleconference on Monday 25 March
- IPP WG teleconference on Monday 8 April

Cheers,
- Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician / Softwar= e Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IE= EE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chai= r - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP &a= mp; Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthincmailto:bluer= oofmusic@gmail.com
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094=
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434=

<= /div>

--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
ipp@pwg.org
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/l= istinfo/ipp

_________________________________________________________
Michael = Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --Boundary_(ID_7ROduESnR3SD11jN93HICg)-- --===============1984652658== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp --===============1984652658==-- From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Mon Mar 11 04:21:35 2013 Return-Path: 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 98EB321F85DB for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:21:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9+5bqLg+xhfw for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B2B21F84CE for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6EDB791EA; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:21:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from mail-out.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.151.62.51]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B235791E9 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:20:54 -0400 (EDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Received: from relay2.apple.com ([17.128.113.67]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MJH00KXOU5VOLH0@mail-out.apple.com> for ipp@pwg.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:20:24 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807143-b7f896d000006d55-38-513dbdf6e2c2 Received: from [17.153.106.83] (Unknown_Domain [17.153.106.83]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay2.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id CF.28.27989.7FDBD315; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [IPP] IPP Agenda - 3-5pm Eastern 11 March 2013 From: Michael Sweet In-reply-to: Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:20:30 -0400 Message-id: References: To: Ira McDonald X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiODMrWPf7XttAg9vzzCxev1rKbnFs30sW iyPfYh2YPbae/MHmsXPWXXaPeYunMwUwR3HZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlLOhcwVQwJ6di2roO1gbG ZQldjJwcEgImEtv/PmaDsMUkLtxbD2RzcQgJ9DJJPN1ynAkkISxgLTFp/wQwm1dAT+Lat6/s IDazQILEynvTwZrZBNQkfk/qYwWxOQVsJWb9OQhUw8HBIqAq8Xa3FUQ5v8TB3g/MEGNsJPo3 bIfa1cgocaLnPhtIvYiAlsSS54oQ98hKvH7+hmUCI98sJJtnIdkMYWtLLFv4mnkWUDezgI7E 5IWMqMIQ9sfzR5gWMLKtYhQoSs1JrDTSSywoyEnVS87P3cQICtmGQucdjMeWWR1iFOBgVOLh naBjGyjEmlhWXJl7iFGCg1lJhHflJptAId6UxMqq1KL8+KLSnNTiQ4zSHCxK4rwZAUDVAumJ JanZqakFqUUwWSYOTqkGRn2eDMEv0xKec07W3+W/v1nH0TpBPTf15bUF9mcb/Hf3zv7g33u2 4ivjJdWTFj7ev+bU7FOW8/ikOTdr1kV+sxrlaedOLAhbsSTv/lkRv83fW8JmuQYs+Oc573UU 1x73wsIXu/cqBG0WnNJRnN+ZVz+rgU95Wcp1M6lzOyeve2RS6LD/y/OzxkosxRmJhlrMRcWJ AAkQWwdVAgAA X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: ipp@pwg.org X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1163417412==" Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: D6EDB791EA.A8E7D X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org --===============1163417412== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_fwuysO4+WP7vcAQXjGt9xQ)" --Boundary_(ID_fwuysO4+WP7vcAQXjGt9xQ) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Oh, and I forgot one link to the ISTO-provided examples for certification/logo agreements: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/whitepaper/wh-sample-cert-agreements.pdf On 2013-03-10, at 11:18 PM, Michael Sweet wrote: > All, > > I have uploaded some slides and a (very very) initial draft of a self-certification manual to: > > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/slides/ipp-self-certification-20130310.pdf > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/whitepaper/tb-ippeveselfcert10-20130310.docx > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/whitepaper/tb-ippeveselfcert10-20130310.pdf > > On 2013-03-10, at 7:49 PM, Ira McDonald wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Our next IPP WG call will be this Monday! >> >> Monday 11 March 12-2pm US Pacific / 3-5pm US Eastern >> >> Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239 >> Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300 (Primary) >> Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570 (Backup) >> >> Attendee Access Code: *******# >> Attendee ID Code: # (empty) >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> Meeting information >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> Date: Every Monday, from Monday, July 9, 2012 to no end date >> Time: 12:00 pm, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco) >> Meeting Number: 624 587 312 >> Meeting Password: pwg123 >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> To start or join the online meeting >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> Go to https://appleinc.webex.com/appleinc/j.php?ED=204995427&UID=504472682&PW=NNzM5MmRlMzBl&RT=MiM0 >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Agenda: >> (1) PWG IP Policy and Minute Taker >> - Mike? >> >> (2) Approve IPP minutes from previous meeting >> - ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-concall-minutes-20130225.pdf >> -- IPP WG call on 25 February >> >> (3) Status of PWG Formal Vote on MSN2 (ends on 28 March) >> - ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-pwgmsn20-20130125-rev.pdf >> >> (4) Status of IPP FaxOut (Mike) >> - ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippfaxout10-20130227-rev.pdf >> >> (5) Discussion of IPP Everywhere Self-Certification (Mike) >> >> - http://www.pwg.org/archives/ipp/2013/016049.html >> >> (6) Next steps >> - IPP WG teleconference on Monday 25 March >> - IPP WG teleconference on Monday 8 April >> >> Cheers, >> - Ira >> >> >> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) >> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG >> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group >> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG >> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG >> Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG >> 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 >> Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 >> Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ >> ipp mailing list >> ipp@pwg.org >> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp > > _________________________________________________________ > Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > _______________________________________________ > ipp mailing list > ipp@pwg.org > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --Boundary_(ID_fwuysO4+WP7vcAQXjGt9xQ) Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Oh, and I forgot one link= to the ISTO-provided examples for certification/logo agreements:

<= /div>
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/p= wg/ipp/whitepaper/wh-sample-cert-agreements.pdf


On 2013-03-10, at 11:18 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:

All,

I have uploaded some slides and a (v= ery very) initial draft of a self-certification manual to:

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/slides/ipp-self-certification-20130310.pdf=

On 2013-03-10, at 7:49 PM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

Our next <= span class=3D"il">IPP WG call will be this Monday!

Mon= day 11 March 12-2pm US Pacific / 3-5pm US Eastern

Call-in toll-free = number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300 (Primary)
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570 (Backup)

Attendee A= ccess Code: *******#
Attendee ID Code: # (empty)

--= -----------------------------------------------------
Meeting information
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Every Monday, from Monday, July 9, 2012 to no end date
Time: 12:= 00 pm, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco)
Meeting Number: 624 587 312=
Meeting Password: pwg123
-----------------------------------------------= --------
To start or join the online meeting
------------------------= -------------------------------
Go to https://appleinc.webex.com/appleinc/j.ph= p?ED=3D204995427&UID=3D504472682&PW=3DNNzM5MmRlMzBl&RT=3DMiM0
-------------------------------------------------------

Agenda= :
(1) PWG IP Policy and Minute Taker
- Mike?

(2) Approv= e IPP minutes from previous meeting
- ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-c= oncall-minutes-20130225.pdf
-- IPP WG call= on 25 February

(3) Status of PWG Formal Vote on MSN2 (ends on 28 March)
- ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-p= wgmsn20-20130125-rev.pdf

(4) Status of IPP FaxOut (Mike)
- ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippfaxout10-20130227-rev.p= df

(5) Discussion of IPP Everywhere Self-Certification (Mike)
<= span class=3D"il">
- http://www.p= wg.org/archives/ipp/2013/016049.html

(6) Next steps
- IPP WG teleconference on Monday 25 March
- IPP WG teleconference on Monday 8 April

Cheers,
- Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician / Softwar= e Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IE= EE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chai= r - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP &a= mp; Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthincmailto:bluer= oofmusic@gmail.com
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094=
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434=

<= /div>

--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
ipp@pwg.org
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp

MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
ipp@pwg.org
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/l= istinfo/ipp

_________________________________________________= ________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair<= /div>


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --Boundary_(ID_fwuysO4+WP7vcAQXjGt9xQ)-- --===============1163417412== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp --===============1163417412==-- From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Mon Mar 11 06:30:43 2013 Return-Path: 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 6C58421F8A66 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:30:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.698, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id goE1y+yx2s94 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:30:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 330A421F87AD for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:30:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B7E791F8; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:30:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from mail-out.apple.com (bramley.apple.com [17.151.62.49]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84FCB791F6; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:29:54 -0400 (EDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Received: from relay5.apple.com ([17.128.113.88]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MJI007DG05TG2D1@mail-out.apple.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:29:53 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807158-b7fa36d000006cd2-92-513ddc4f1316 Received: from [17.153.46.169] (Unknown_Domain [17.153.46.169]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay5.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id CB.B8.27858.05CDD315; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [IPP] Re: [MFD] Comments on IPP Faxout Spec w/r SM FaxOut Service From: Michael Sweet In-reply-to: <000001ce1d18$05c4d790$114e86b0$@net> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:29:51 -0400 Message-id: References: <000001ce12d8$fc4c2e50$f4e48af0$@net> <0DC887B1-3420-4117-9A6D-8202733FF41F@apple.com> <000001ce1d18$05c4d790$114e86b0$@net> To: William A Wagner X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiOFNvpW7gHdtAg95GBYvXZ7qZLI7te8li sbX/DJPFkW+xFucuKDqwemw9+YPNY/LjOYweO2fdZfeYt3g6UwBLFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfG oYevmQrW7WOsuHHlKGMD4/sljF2MnBwSAiYSK24shrLFJC7cW8/WxcjFISTQyyTxZ/VSFpCE sICfxK7WTawgNq+AnsS1b1/ZQWxmgQSJue82gMXZBNQkfk/qA7M5BYwkrs07CGazCKhKTJoy ixmi3lVi77a9QL0cQHNsJG6+k4TYdZZR4uPiLrB6EQEdieaGmVAHyUq8fv6GZQIj3ywkq2ch WQ1ha0ssW/iaGcI2kHja+QqLuL7Em3dzmBYwsq1iFChKzUmsNNVLLCjISdVLzs/dxAgK64bC iB2M/5dZHWIU4GBU4uGdoGMbKMSaWFZcmXuIUYKDWUmEd+Umm0Ah3pTEyqrUovz4otKc1OJD jNIcLErivFkBQNUC6YklqdmpqQWpRTBZJg5OqQbGHHnHpmfMVvYGq5cHX+NfLD2nXldJWaRq /iNbeU/f6Vv+mR3fe451a7CO1Iv7jx9k1Lxs3+52OD8t7kfcj3gFL63nf5OstuZ4m5a9mDUl y2fr3fNtU1d8aNmbpDln0caPx2ep51tsly3VecmgJ+xoKOrAH/pELMXvH1PPcffy7AlfSz/r B7xRYinOSDTUYi4qTgQAWKhtGmcCAAA= X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: ipp@pwg.org, mfd@pwg.org, 'Ying Chen' X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0772718351==" Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: F3B7E791F8.A9512 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org --===============0772718351== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_pfBtDRvbY/0pCFp0R3cgvw)" --Boundary_(ID_pfBtDRvbY/0pCFp0R3cgvw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Bill, On 2013-03-09, at 5:47 PM, William A Wagner wrote: > Hello All, > This discussion is exposing several issues and questions. I suggest that= there should be some consideration of these in the SM meeting as well. > 1. Since the PWG has an approved candidate standard that Nancy sugge= sts does not agree with the current schema, which takes precedence? I sugge= st that any SM change must be reflected in an errata in the Common Model o= r specific Service candidate standard, as appropriate. >From a purely pragmatic perspective, I would say precedence for typographic= al/omission errors goes to whichever is right! :) If we find genuine technical issues then we need to proceed carefully. Regardless, we will need to do errata for the corresponding specs - at the = very least to point to the current version of the schema that has the fix. > 2. Has the GetServiceElements operation requested element= s actually been changed? The Common Model indicates that =93Some Services m= ay accept an additional argument in a GetServiceElements request t= o further filter the response=85 The individual Service specifications iden= tify such arguments if any, their effect and whether support is mandatory.= =94 My interpretation of this is that the Common Model allows the distinct= ion between the SM and IPP operations to be eliminated for a specific Servi= ce if the Service Specification so mandates. I do not see this mandate in t= he FaxOut Service Specification. Should it be there? Personally I am not so concerned about this aspect, although it would be ni= ce for all services to support selection of elements as well as groups for = efficiency, just like IPP already provides. > 3. In regard to GetFaxOutServiceElements and GetFaxJobElements as we= ll as other operations (e.g., Activate and Deactivate), the proposed IPP Fa= xOut binding appears to follow IPP Printing rather than the SM FaxOut spe= cification. (i.e., although the IPP binding may allow specifying groups, i= t is mandated in the SM) Is this divergence valid? Or, if the differences a= re necessary, should the SM FaxOut specification be updated? And if this up= date violates the Common Model, should that be updated? Essentially, should= we be consistent among our standards? IPP requires both groups and attributes (elements), and always has. There = is some wiggle room for IPP implementations (a conforming implementation ca= n just return everything with successful-ok-ignored-or-substituted-attribut= es, with requested-attributes in the unsupported attributes group), but fun= ctionally requested-attributes is just a performance optimization (with the= exception of media-col-database) > 4. Returning to the issue of desired capability, I may have gotten = lost, but it appears that three levels of Service capabilities are desired.= Is this correct? > a. Currently configured, provided by Get-Printer-Attributes and (pe= rhaps) byGetFaxOutServiceElements > b. Values that the implementation allows an administrator to configu= re, provided by Get-Printer-Supported-Values ( I find RFC 3380, 4.3, para 4= totally confusing and suggest that clarification is in order) > c. The =93original manufacturer xxx-supported values", which depend= ing upon ones interpretation, may not be provided by IPP. The term =93defau= lt=94 in the discussion is unclear. Is the interest in manufacturer defaul= t configuration (why?) or the =91out-of-box=92 capabilities that an admini= strator could configure? IPP provides A and B. We don't have a way to get C directly, but honestly = I would expect B and C to be the same out-of-the-box most of the time. > 5. So, whether or not IPP provides it in Get-Printer-Supported-Valu= es (which seems to depend upon the implementer=92s interpretation), it is d= esired to include in the FaxOut SM a capability to get the full set of supp= orted values for read/write elements. I don't think the question of Get-Printer-Supported-Values returning set B = above is at issue - that is precisely what it is defined to return. > Although some clarification is necessary, I think that GetServi= ceElements/Capabilities may provide this, as distinguished from GetServiceElements/Configuration which would correlate with Get-Printer-Attr= ibutes. See section 4.3 of MFD Model for the discussion of capabilities. ServiceCapabilities provides the currently configured/available jo= b and document ticket elements and values. This is equivalent to what IPP'= s Get-Printer-Attributes provides in its xxx-supported attributes. ServiceCapabilitiesReady provides the ready job and document ticke= t elements and values. This is equivalent to what IPP's Get-Printer-Attribu= tes provides in its xxx-ready attributes. What we need is a new group, ServiceCapabilitiesSupported, which p= rovides the equivalent of IPP's Get-Printer-Supported-Values. This should = also include a discussion of its use in conjunction with SetServic= eElements. .... FWIW, ServiceDefaults provides the default job and document ticket= elements and values. This is equivalent to what IPP's Get-Printer-Attribut= es provides in its xxx-default attributes. ServiceConfiguration provides a view of the components (essentiall= y the Printer MIB properties) associated with the service. We have some ve= ry limited exposure of this in IPP attributes - printer-alert, printer-inpu= t-tray, printer-output-tray, and printer-supply. _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --Boundary_(ID_pfBtDRvbY/0pCFp0R3cgvw) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Bill,

On 2013-03-09, at 5:47 PM, William A Wagner = <wamwagner@comcast.net> = wrote:
Hello All,
This discu= ssion is exposing several issues  and questions. I suggest that there = should be some consideration of these in the SM meeting as well.=
1.    &nbs= p; <= span style=3D"font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">= Since the PWG has an approved candidate standard that Nancy suggests does n= ot agree with the current schema, which takes precedence? I suggest that an= y  SM change must be reflected in an errata in the Common Model or spe= cific Service candidate standard, as appropriate.
<= /blockquote>

From a purely pragmatic perspective, I would say= precedence for typographical/omission errors goes to whichever is right! := )

If we find genuine technical issues then we need= to proceed carefully.

Regardless, we will need to= do errata for the corresponding specs - at the very least to point to the = current version of the schema that has the fix.

=
2.   &nbs= p;   Has the Get<service>ServiceElements  operation reque= sted elements actually been changed? The Common Model indicates that =93Some Services may ac= cept an additional argument in a Get<service>ServiceElements request = to further filter the response=85 The individual Service specifications ide= ntify such arguments if any, their effect and whether support is mandatory.= =94  My interpretation of this is that the Common Model allows the dis= tinction between the SM and IPP operations to be eliminated for a specific = Service if the Service Specification so mandates. I do not see this mandate= in the FaxOut Service Specification. Should it be there?

Personally I am not so concerned about t= his aspect, although it would be nice for all services to support selection= of elements as well as groups for efficiency, just like IPP already provid= es.

3.      In regard to GetFaxOutServiceElements and GetFaxJobElements as w= ell as other operations (e.g., Activate and Deactivate), the proposed IPP F= axOut  binding  appears to follow IPP Printing rather than the SM= FaxOut specification. (i.e., although  the IPP binding may allow spec= ifying groups, it is mandated in the SM) Is this divergence valid? Or, if t= he differences are necessary, should the SM FaxOut specification be updated? And if this upd= ate violates the Common Model, should that be updated? Essentially, should = we be consistent among our standards?
=

IPP requires both groups and attributes (elements), and alwa= ys has.  There is some wiggle room for IPP implementations (a conformi= ng implementation can just return everything with successful-ok-ignored-or-= substituted-attributes, with requested-attributes in the unsupported attrib= utes group), but functionally requested-attributes is just a performance op= timization (with the exception of media-col-database)

4.      Returning to the issue o= f  desired capability, I may have gotten lost, but it appears that thr= ee levels of Service capabilities are desired. Is this correct?<= /span>
a. =      = Currently configured,  provided by Get-Printer-Attributes and (perhaps) byGetFaxOutServiceElements<= o:p>
b.c.       The =93original manufacturer xxx-supported= values", which depending upon ones interpretation, may not be provided by = IPP. The term =93default=94 in the discussion is  unclear. Is the inte= rest in manufacturer default configuration (why?)  or the =91out-of-bo= x=92 capabilities that an administrator could configure?
=

IPP provides A and B.  We don't have= a way to get C directly, but honestly I would expect B and C to be the sam= e out-of-the-box most of the time.

=
<= /o:p>
5. = ;So, whether or not IPP provides  it in Get-Printer-Supported-Values (which seems t= o depend upon the implementer=92s interpretation), it is desired to include= in the FaxOut SM a capability to&nbs= p;get the = full set of supported values for read/write elements.

I don't think the question of Get-Printer-S= upported-Values returning set B above is at issue - that is precisely what = it is defined to return.

 Although some clarification is n= ecessary, I think that Get<service>S= erviceElements/Capabilities may  provide this, as distinguished from G= et<service>ServiceElements/Configuration which would correlate with G= et-Printer-Attributes.

=
See section 4.3 of MFD Model for the discussion of capabilities.
=

<service>ServiceCapabilities provides the currently co= nfigured/available job and document ticket elements and values.  This = is equivalent to what IPP's Get-Printer-Attributes provides in its xxx-supp= orted attributes.

<service>ServiceCapabiliti= esReady provides the ready job and document ticket elements and values. Thi= s is equivalent to what IPP's Get-Printer-Attributes provides in its xxx-re= ady attributes.

What we need is a new group, <s= ervice>ServiceCapabilitiesSupported, which provides the equivalent of IP= P's Get-Printer-Supported-Values.  This should also include a discussi= on of its use in conjunction with Set<service>ServiceElements.
<= div>
....

FWIW, <service>= ServiceDefaults provides the default job and document ticket elements and v= alues. This is equivalent to what IPP's Get-Printer-Attributes provides in = its xxx-default attributes.

<service>Service= Configuration provides a view of the components (essentially the Printer MI= B properties) associated with the service.  We have some very limited = exposure of this in IPP attributes - printer-alert, printer-input-tray, pri= nter-output-tray, and printer-supply.

_________________________________________________________
Michael = Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --Boundary_(ID_pfBtDRvbY/0pCFp0R3cgvw)-- --===============0772718351== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp --===============0772718351==-- From pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Mon Mar 11 11:48:17 2013 Return-Path: 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 4968221F8EAB for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uiIc7s1OHp9u for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D20821F8EA0 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15B6791FE; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:47:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Delivered-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Received: from mail4.sharplabs.com (mail4.sharplabs.com [216.65.151.214]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174D5791FC for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:47:20 -0400 (EDT) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1363027631-020808088e1487f0001-asKuw5 Received: from WABCASP2.sharpamericas.com ([172.29.224.252]) by mail4.sharplabs.com with ESMTP id npivmnkSAZ1WlKFG for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:47:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: jmurdock@sharplabs.com Received: from WABEXCHP1.sharpamericas.com ([fe80::f930:84ca:49e6:2cbd]) by WABCASP2.sharpamericas.com ([172.29.224.3]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:47:11 -0700 From: "Murdock, Joe" X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: fe80::f930:84ca:49e6:2cbd To: "pwg-announce@pwg.org" Subject: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder: PWG Formal Vote: PWG-LOG Thread-Topic: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder: PWG Formal Vote: PWG-LOG X-ASG-Orig-Subj: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder: PWG Formal Vote: PWG-LOG Thread-Index: Ac4eiNZxGK62vo9xT5u6Zm9yrHlJRg== Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:47:10 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.29.229.74] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Barracuda-Connect: UNKNOWN[172.29.224.252] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1363027631 X-Barracuda-URL: http://mail4.enet.sharplabs.com:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi Received-SPF: none (sharplabs.com: jmurdock@sharplabs.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at sharplabs.com X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.14 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.14 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=CN_BODY_332, HTML_MESSAGE, THREAD_INDEX, THREAD_TOPIC X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.124917 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.01 THREAD_INDEX thread-index: AcO7Y8iR61tzADqsRmmc5wNiFHEOig== 0.01 THREAD_TOPIC Thread-Topic: ...(Japanese Subject)... 0.12 CN_BODY_332 BODY: CN_BODY_332 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-BeenThere: pwg-announce@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Printer Working Group Announcement List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0939910029==" Sender: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: F15B6791FE.ACFA3 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org --===============0939910029== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377E29F9wabexchp1sharpa_" --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377E29F9wabexchp1sharpa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Reminder: Please place your votes Greetings: VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL! See voting instructions below. This email initiates the Formal Approval vote by the PWG membership on PWG-= LOG Spec, which is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-ids-log10-20130207.pdf The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-ids-log10.txt VOTING PERIOD: This Formal Vote will start today on Tuesday 12 February 20= 13 and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Tuesday 12 March 2013. Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain. Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to exercise their right to vote. PWG Privacy Policy: Your vote is confidential and will not be disclosed by PWG officers or document editors. HOW TO VOTE: Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format: PWG-LOG Formal Vote--- Example: PWG-LOG Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes Rules: (1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vote and MUST contain a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No" vote int= o a "Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counted, per PWG Process/3= .0. (2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG Process/3.= 0. (3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any *technical* comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval. WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE: Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'): msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair/PWG-LOG Editor) blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG Secretary) jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" com (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair) Alan "dot" Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Alan Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secr= etary) Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote). Notes: (1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0 and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement. The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and the links are provided below. (2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues. The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf __________________________________________________ Alan Sukert, Product Security Specialist, PWG IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377E29F9wabexchp1sharpa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Reminder:  Please pl= ace your votes

 <= /p>

Greetings:

VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL!  See voting instructions below.

This email initiates the Formal Approval vote by the PWG membership on PWG-= LOG Spec, which is located at:

   ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-ids-log10-20130207.pdf

The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at:

  ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-ids-log10.txt


VOTING PERIOD:  This Formal Vote will start today on Tuesday 12 Februa= ry 2013
and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Tuesday 12 March 2013.

Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain.


Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to
exercise their right to vote.

PWG Privacy Policy:  Your vote is confidential and will not be disclos= ed
by PWG officers or document editors.


HOW TO VOTE:

Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format:

PWG-LOG Formal Vote-<company name>-<voter's last name>-<Yes/= No/Abstain>

Example:

 PWG-LOG Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes


Rules:

(1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vo= te and MUST contain
a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No"= ; vote into a
"Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counte= d, per PWG Process/3.0.

(2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG = Process/3.0.

(3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, pe= r PWG Process/3.0.

(4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any  *technical* comment= s, per PWG
Process/3.0.

(5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval.


WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE:

Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing<= br> "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'):

msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair/PWG-= LOG Editor)

blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG S= ecretary)

 

jmurdock "at" sharplabs "= ;dot" com (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair)

Alan ”dot” Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Ala= n Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary)


Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote).


Notes:

(1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0
and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement.
The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and
the links are provided below.

(2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of<= br> the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues.

The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is
located at:

 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf

The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at:<= br>
 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf=

_______________________________________= ___________

Alan Sukert, Product Security Specialis= t, PWG IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary

 

 

 


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377E29F9wabexchp1sharpa_-- --===============0939910029== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pwg-announce mailing list pwg-announce@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg-announce --===============0939910029==-- From pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Mon Mar 11 11:51:44 2013 Return-Path: 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 D2BE721F8E32 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:51:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JKOJRjKxssVC for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:51:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B3321F8E1D for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E2E79228; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:48:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Delivered-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Received: from mail4.sharplabs.com (mail4.sharplabs.com [216.65.151.214]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C727A79203 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:47:56 -0400 (EDT) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1363027670-020808088e148870001-asKuw5 Received: from WABCASP1.sharpamericas.com ([172.29.224.253]) by mail4.sharplabs.com with ESMTP id 5Hekem6IEBcfsPUi for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:47:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: jmurdock@sharplabs.com Received: from WABEXCHP1.sharpamericas.com ([fe80::f930:84ca:49e6:2cbd]) by Wabcasp1 ([172.29.224.2]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:47:49 -0700 From: "Murdock, Joe" X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: fe80::f930:84ca:49e6:2cbd To: "pwg-announce@pwg.org" Subject: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder PWG Formal Vote: HCD-NAP Thread-Topic: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder PWG Formal Vote: HCD-NAP X-ASG-Orig-Subj: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder PWG Formal Vote: HCD-NAP Thread-Index: Ac4eiOzfQwxouxU2SRyUSA1Dsbq/+Q== Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:47:48 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.29.229.74] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Barracuda-Connect: UNKNOWN[172.29.224.253] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1363027670 X-Barracuda-URL: http://mail4.enet.sharplabs.com:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi Received-SPF: none (sharplabs.com: jmurdock@sharplabs.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at sharplabs.com X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.15 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.15 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=CN_BODY_332, HTML_MESSAGE, INFO_TLD, THREAD_INDEX, THREAD_TOPIC X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.124917 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.01 THREAD_INDEX thread-index: AcO7Y8iR61tzADqsRmmc5wNiFHEOig== 0.01 THREAD_TOPIC Thread-Topic: ...(Japanese Subject)... 0.12 CN_BODY_332 BODY: CN_BODY_332 0.00 INFO_TLD URI: Contains an URL in the INFO top-level domain 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-BeenThere: pwg-announce@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Printer Working Group Announcement List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0231792926==" Sender: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 15E2E79228.AD3CD X-pwg-MailScanner-From: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org --===============0231792926== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377E2A06wabexchp1sharpa_" --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377E2A06wabexchp1sharpa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Reminder: Please place your votes From: Sukert, Alan [mailto:Alan.Sukert@xerox.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:47 AM To: PWG Announcements Cc: Murdock, Joe; Michael Sweet (msweet@apple.com) (msweet@apple.com); Ira = McDonald (blueroofmusic@gmail.com) Subject: RE: [Pwg-Announce] PWG Formal Vote: HCD-NAP Corrected message. From: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org [ma= ilto:pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Sukert, Alan Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:35 PM To: PWG Announcements Subject: [Pwg-Announce] PWG Formal Vote: HCD-NAP Greetings: VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL! See voting instructions below. This email initiates the Formal Approval vote by the PWG membership on HCD-= NAP Spec, which is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-ids-napsoh10-20130211.pdf The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-hcd-nap10.txt VOTING PERIOD: This Formal Vote will start today on Tuesday 12 February 20= 13 and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Tuesday 12 March 2013. Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain. Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to exercise their right to vote. PWG Privacy Policy: Your vote is confidential and will not be disclosed by PWG officers or document editors. HOW TO VOTE: Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format: HCD-NAP Formal Vote--- Example: HCD-NAP Attributes Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes Rules: (1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vote and MUST contain a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No" vote int= o a "Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counted, per PWG Process/3= .0. (2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG Process/3.= 0. (3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any *technical* comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval. WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE: Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'): msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair) blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG Secretary) jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" com (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair/HCD Health Att= ributes Editor) Alan "dot" Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Alan Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secr= etary) Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote). Notes: (1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0 and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement. The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and the links are provided below. (2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues. The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf __________________________________________________ Alan Sukert, Product Security Specialist, PWG IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377E2A06wabexchp1sharpa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Reminder:  Please pl= ace your votes

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

From: Sukert, = Alan [mailto:Alan.Sukert@xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:47 AM
To: PWG Announcements
Cc: Murdock, Joe; Michael Sweet (msweet@apple.com) (msweet@apple.com= ); Ira McDonald (blueroofmusic@gmail.com)
Subject: RE: [Pwg-Announce] PWG Formal Vote: HCD-NAP

 

Corrected message.

 <= /p>

From: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.or= g [mailto:pwg-announce-= bounces@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Sukert, Alan
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:35 PM
To: PWG Announcements
Subject: [Pwg-Announce] PWG Formal Vote: HCD-NAP

 

Greetings:

VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL!  See voting instructions below.

This email initiates the Formal Approval vote by the PWG membership on HCD<= span style=3D"color:black">-NAP Spec, which is located at:

   ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-ids-napsoh10-20130211.= pdf

The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at:

  ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-hcd-nap10.txt


VOTING PERIOD:  This Formal Vote will start today on Tuesday 12 Februa= ry 2013
and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Tuesday 12 March 2013.

Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain.


Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to
exercise their right to vote.

PWG Privacy Policy:  Your vote is confidential and will not be disclos= ed
by PWG officers or document editors.


HOW TO VOTE:

Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format:

 HCD-NAP Formal Vote-<company name>-<voter's last name>-&l= t;Yes/No/Abstain>

Example:

 HCD-NAP Attributes Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes


Rules:

(1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vo= te and MUST contain
a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No"= ; vote into a
"Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counte= d, per PWG Process/3.0.

(2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG = Process/3.0.

(3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, pe= r PWG Process/3.0.

(4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any  *technical* comment= s, per PWG
Process/3.0.

(5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval.


WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE:

Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing<= br> "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'):

msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair)

blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG S= ecretary)

 

jmurdock "at" sharplabs "= ;dot" com (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair/HCD Health Attributes Editor)

Alan ”dot” Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Ala= n Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary)


Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote).


Notes:

(1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0
and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement.
The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and
the links are provided below.

(2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of<= br> the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues.

The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is
located at:

 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf

The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at:<= br>
 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf=

_______________________________________= ___________

Alan Sukert, Product Security Specialis= t, PWG IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary

 

 

 


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanne= r, and is
believed to be clean.


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377E2A06wabexchp1sharpa_-- --===============0231792926== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pwg-announce mailing list pwg-announce@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg-announce --===============0231792926==-- From pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Mon Mar 11 11:52:46 2013 Return-Path: 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 BCE7521F8EE6 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:52:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mVNbKxfgC+P9 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E0A21F8EE1 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4927920B; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:51:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Delivered-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Received: from mail4.sharplabs.com (mail4.sharplabs.com [216.65.151.214]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA8B79239 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:48:30 -0400 (EDT) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1363027699-020808088f1488a0001-asKuw5 Received: from WABCASP2.sharpamericas.com ([172.29.224.252]) by mail4.sharplabs.com with ESMTP id nEnsfE8F4pk9VMwx for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: jmurdock@sharplabs.com Received: from WABEXCHP1.sharpamericas.com ([fe80::f930:84ca:49e6:2cbd]) by WABCASP2.sharpamericas.com ([172.29.224.3]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:48:18 -0700 From: "Murdock, Joe" X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: fe80::f930:84ca:49e6:2cbd To: "pwg-announce@pwg.org" Subject: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder PWG Formal Vote: HCD Health Attributes Thread-Topic: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder PWG Formal Vote: HCD Health Attributes X-ASG-Orig-Subj: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder PWG Formal Vote: HCD Health Attributes Thread-Index: Ac4eiP8MNZaS9qnmQUqZw/5hZrQ0+A== Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:48:18 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.29.229.74] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Barracuda-Connect: UNKNOWN[172.29.224.252] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1363027701 X-Barracuda-URL: http://mail4.enet.sharplabs.com:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi Received-SPF: none (sharplabs.com: jmurdock@sharplabs.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at sharplabs.com X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.14 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.14 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=CN_BODY_332, HTML_MESSAGE, THREAD_INDEX, THREAD_TOPIC X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.124917 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.01 THREAD_INDEX thread-index: AcO7Y8iR61tzADqsRmmc5wNiFHEOig== 0.01 THREAD_TOPIC Thread-Topic: ...(Japanese Subject)... 0.12 CN_BODY_332 BODY: CN_BODY_332 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-BeenThere: pwg-announce@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Printer Working Group Announcement List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1219424149==" Sender: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 7C4927920B.AD6CB X-pwg-MailScanner-From: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org --===============1219424149== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377E2A13wabexchp1sharpa_" --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377E2A13wabexchp1sharpa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Reminder: Please place your votes Greetings: VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL! See voting instructions below. This email initiates the Formal Approval vote by the PWG membership on HCD = Health Attributes Spec, which is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-idsattributes10-20130211.pdf The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-hcd-attr10.txt VOTING PERIOD: This Formal Vote will start today on Tuesday 12 February 20= 13 and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Tuesday 12 March 2013. Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain. Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to exercise their right to vote. PWG Privacy Policy: Your vote is confidential and will not be disclosed by PWG officers or document editors. HOW TO VOTE: Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format: HCD Health Attributes Formal Vote--- Example: HCD Health Attributes Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes Rules: (1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vote and MUST contain a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No" vote int= o a "Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counted, per PWG Process/3= .0. (2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG Process/3.= 0. (3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any *technical* comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval. WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE: Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'): msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair) blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG Secretary) jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" com (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair/HCD Health Att= ributes Editor) Alan "dot" Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Alan Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secr= etary) Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote). Notes: (1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0 and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement. The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and the links are provided below. (2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues. The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf __________________________________________________ Alan Sukert, Product Security Specialist, PWG IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377E2A13wabexchp1sharpa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Reminder:  Please pl= ace your votes

 <= /p>

 

Greetings:

VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL!  See voting instructions below.

This email initiates the Formal Approval vote by the PWG membership on HCD = Health Attributes Spec, which is located at:

   ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-idsattributes10-201= 30211.pdf

The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at:

   ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-hcd-attr10.txt


VOTING PERIOD:  This Formal Vote will start today on Tuesday 12 Februa= ry 2013
and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Tuesday 12 March 2013.

Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain.


Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to
exercise their right to vote.

PWG Privacy Policy:  Your vote is confidential and will not be disclos= ed
by PWG officers or document editors.


HOW TO VOTE:

Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format:

 HCD Health Attributes Formal Vote-<company name>-<voter's la= st name>-<Yes/No/Abstain>

Example:

 HCD Health Attributes Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes


Rules:

(1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vo= te and MUST contain
a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No"= ; vote into a
"Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counte= d, per PWG Process/3.0.

(2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG = Process/3.0.

(3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, pe= r PWG Process/3.0.

(4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any  *technical* comment= s, per PWG
Process/3.0.

(5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval.


WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE:

Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing<= br> "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'):

msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair)

blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG S= ecretary)

 

jmurdock "at" sharplabs "= ;dot" com (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair/HCD Health Attributes Editor)

Alan ”dot” Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Ala= n Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary)


Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote).


Notes:

(1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0
and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement.
The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and
the links are provided below.

(2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of<= br> the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues.

The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is
located at:

 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf

The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at:<= br>
 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf=

_______________________________________= ___________

Alan Sukert, Product Security Specialis= t, PWG IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary

 

 

 


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377E2A13wabexchp1sharpa_-- --===============1219424149== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pwg-announce mailing list pwg-announce@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg-announce --===============1219424149==-- From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Mon Mar 11 14:05:30 2013 Return-Path: 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 63B6321F8D2A for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:05:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.459 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eSnhOzPBflqC for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DDCA21F8D28 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0745791D6; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:05:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from mail-out.apple.com (honeycrisp.apple.com [17.151.62.51]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11DC79198 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:04:56 -0400 (EDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from relay3.apple.com ([17.128.113.83]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MJI00FFOL78ZCO0@mail-out.apple.com> for ipp@pwg.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:04:20 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807153-b7f8a6d0000064e7-f5-513e46d0943c Received: from [17.153.107.142] (Unknown_Domain [17.153.107.142]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay3.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id E7.38.25831.3D64E315; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:04:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Sweet Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:04:14 -0400 To: ipp@pwg.org Message-id: <0C9C5AF1-8A75-4802-9E22-BAB575899D48@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1695) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrHJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiODO7T/eKm12gwaR+A4tj+16yWBz5FuvA 5LH15A82j3mLpzMFMEVx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZew7spixoIOtYubxWUwNjN9Yuhg5OSQETCRu HljHDGGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0ign0li3s4GJpAEm4CaxO9JfawgNrOAlsSNfy+ZIGx5ie1v54A1 swioSuyZPokNxBYGGrr+7hcwW0SAX2LiRYheXgEbiRedE6BsPYlzWw6xQiyWlfhydwLjBEae WUhWzEKyYhaSlgWMzKsYBYpScxIrjfUSCwpyUvWS83M3MYJCpaEweAfjn2VWhxgFOBiVeHgV vtkGCrEmlhVX5h5ilOBgVhLhLXWwCxTiTUmsrEotyo8vKs1JLT7EKM3BoiTOmxkAVC2QnliS mp2aWpBaBJNl4uCUamB0znktdibxtevtv7s6y5YlFj2baPbqv936TNPNi3vel3b9D9s58eus ZtEdvXzPKkKNZhY+LmBgc+DXntl6b8FslbiA0HybOYc3Rc8LWLRwK1PZxa2R21UZvJTbtKc/ MLqpOPNg4wmzLn3/N/GzJfguNq449yV7fumXv+cnmd9hjrE+F/poVkyWEktxRqKhFnNRcSIA UW1GERECAAA= X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Subject: [IPP] Minutes posted from today's conference call X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: F0745791D6.A88BD X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org All, I have posted the minutes from today's IPP conference call to: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-concall-minutes-20130311.pdf Our next conference call will be on March 25, 2013 at 3pm ET. New action items: - Mike to bug people about MSN2 formal vote - Ira to capture job terminating state wording from IPP FaxOut for SM FaxIn - Mike to post prototype experience for FaxOut - Mike to post stable draft of FaxOut - Mike to put together outline of IPP Everywhere self-cert license agreement - Mike to post logo message to pwg-announce to solicit feedback - Mike to setup certification mailing list on new server _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Thu Mar 14 15:43:55 2013 Return-Path: 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 4D17811E814D for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:43:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QSszlzI2z67q for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37FAC11E8133 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B62791F6; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:43:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from mail-out.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.151.62.51]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0EAB791EA for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:43:16 -0400 (EDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Received: from relay7.apple.com ([17.128.113.101]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MJO006LO9RDHT50@mail-out.apple.com> for ipp@pwg.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:43:03 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807165-b7fb26d00000796b-f0-5142527427f3 Received: from [17.153.28.209] (Unknown_Domain [17.153.28.209]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay7.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id F7.56.31083.67252415; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:43:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Sweet Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:43:00 -0400 To: "ipp@pwg.org" Message-id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiOFPmom55kFOgwe/zzBbH9r1ksTjyLdaB yWPryR9sHvMWT2cKYIrisklJzcksSy3St0vgypj0fjVbwTTDikPdNxgbGH9rdjFyckgImEhs nfGfBcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5BAL5PE1k1z2EASbAJqEr8n9bGC2MwCCRIrnh9lBrFZBFQljpxd ywRiCwtoSSxe+BysRkRAXmJt21SwOK+AjcS9NVfYIGw9iWvfvrJDLJOVeP38DcsERu5ZSMbO QlIGEdeWWLbwNVCcA8jWkZi8kBFVGML+eP4I0wJGtlWMAkWpOYmV5nqJBQU5qXrJ+bmbGEGB 1VCYuoOxcbnVIUYBDkYlHt4Zjx0DhVgTy4orcw8xSnAwK4nw7voLFOJNSaysSi3Kjy8qzUkt PsQozcGiJM5rCwxmIYH0xJLU7NTUgtQimCwTB6dUA2NBvJfyfbt1Ba8WHNvqbLtua97zn//m uix1/nVTZAmvb2X/By7zWJcpk9Ud20wCN6/92sarW+Ixs+idbffVbRXLnTd51gfGpPiV701d 98eVuziofhfbc/dsG0nZGK75O21szB9mSJhMfucYLpWhweL5x4+LQ+/yFBnnfzy6x6+buJ/i 2FoyW4mlOCPRUIu5qDgRAN8pawkoAgAA X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Subject: [IPP] RFC: IPP Paid Printing Extensions X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2052999911==" Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: F1B62791F6.A7B18 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org --===============2052999911== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_QCidgx6u3QGYNYY7Q+9kfQ)" --Boundary_(ID_QCidgx6u3QGYNYY7Q+9kfQ) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT All, As some of you might have noticed, CUPS 1.7 has support for a new IPP-based paid printing interface. I have just posted a draft for consideration as future work for the IPP WG at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/whitepaper/tb-ipppaid-sweet-20130314.docx ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/whitepaper/tb-ipppaid-sweet-20130314.pdf This specification expands on what we added (printer-charge-info/-uri) in JPS3 by adding a new job-authorization-uri that is used to authorize a paid printing transaction, much like how credit card transactions are authorized. As with JPS3, the new interface does not expose the complicated details of currency, but instead focuses on the lower-level transaction processing that is needed. Section 4 goes into some depth on how it all works, complete with a sequence diagram. Aside from transactions, this spec also exposes the necessary interfaces for basic quota-based printing (often used in conjunction with transactions) so that the User (and Client software) can know when some action is required of the User. Like the paid printing interface, the focus is on the lower-level notifications and not on exposing page counts, limits, and the like - I don't feel that the CUPS page count/limit interface is sufficiently generic to be standardized... I've also thrown in some additional attributes and values that we use in CUPS and other printing standards - print-scaling to control output scaling, new finishings values for punch and fold, and some descriptive attributes providing limits, the default landscape orientation, and information about the Bonjour service name and kind/category of print functions that are supported. These are not limited to paid printing, but definitely are needed when you get beyond the simple "print this file on plain paper" use cases. Many have also been in use for several years now... If there is resistance to "bundling" these with the paid printing spec, I am happy to split it out as a separate spec as well. Enjoy! _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --Boundary_(ID_QCidgx6u3QGYNYY7Q+9kfQ) Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable All,

A= s some of you might have noticed, CUPS 1.7 has support for a new IPP-based = paid printing interface.  I have just posted a draft for consideration= as future work for the IPP WG at:

This specification expands on what we added (printer-charge-in= fo/-uri) in JPS3 by adding a new job-authorization-uri that is used to auth= orize a paid printing transaction, much like how credit card transactions a= re authorized.  As with JPS3, the new interface does not expose the co= mplicated details of currency, but instead focuses on the lower-level trans= action processing that is needed.  Section 4 goes into some depth on h= ow it all works, complete with a sequence diagram.

Aside from transactions, this spec also exposes the necessary interfaces f= or basic quota-based printing (often used in conjunction with transactions)= so that the User (and Client software) can know when some action is requir= ed of the User.  Like the paid printing interface, the focus is on the= lower-level notifications and not on exposing page counts, limits, and the= like - I don't feel that the CUPS page count/limit interface is sufficient= ly generic to be standardized...

I've also thrown = in some additional attributes and values that we use in CUPS and other prin= ting standards - print-scaling to control output scaling, new finishings va= lues for punch and fold, and some descriptive attributes providing limits, = the default landscape orientation, and information about the Bonjour servic= e name and kind/category of print functions that are supported.  These= are not limited to paid printing, but definitely are needed when you get b= eyond the simple "print this file on plain paper" use cases. Many have also= been in use for several years now...  If there is resistance to "bund= ling" these with the paid printing spec, I am happy to split it out as a se= parate spec as well.

Enjoy!

_________________________________________________________
Michael = Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --Boundary_(ID_QCidgx6u3QGYNYY7Q+9kfQ)-- --===============2052999911== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp --===============2052999911==-- From pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Mon Mar 18 12:40:02 2013 Return-Path: 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 318A921F8CB9 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:40:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VMvpMHIZCkb9 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:39:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A230121F8CCF for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845C6791D4; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:39:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Delivered-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Received: from USA7109MR002.ACS-INC.COM (usa7109mr002.acs-inc.com [63.101.151.11]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2801791AA for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:38:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from usa7109ht003.na.xerox.net ([13.41.230.29]) by USA7109MR002.ACS-INC.COM with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 18 Mar 2013 14:38:41 -0500 Received: from USA7109MB006.na.xerox.net ([169.254.5.67]) by USA7109HT003.na.xerox.net ([13.41.230.29]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:38:41 -0500 From: "Sukert, Alan" To: "pwg-announce@pwg.org" Subject: [Pwg-Announce] Extension of PWG Formal Vote: PWG-LOG Thread-Topic: [Pwg-Announce] Extension of PWG Formal Vote: PWG-LOG Thread-Index: Ac4kEC3NpPoujsJoTguHyLm/FxGTsg== Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:38:41 +0000 Message-ID: <772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D308819962B@USA7109MB006.na.xerox.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [13.41.230.85] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: X-BeenThere: pwg-announce@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Printer Working Group Announcement List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0604148435==" Sender: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 845C6791D4.AD18C X-pwg-MailScanner-From: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org --===============0604148435== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D308819962BUSA7109MB006naxer_" --_000_772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D308819962BUSA7109MB006naxer_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings: VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL! See voting instructions below. This email announces the extension of the Formal Approval vote by the PWG m= embership on PWG-LOG Spec, which is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-ids-log10-20130207.pdf The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-ids-log10.txt VOTING PERIOD: This Formal Vote which started on Tuesday 12 February 2013 has been extended and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Monday 01 April= 2013. Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain. Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to exercise their right to vote. PWG Privacy Policy: Your vote is confidential and will not be disclosed by PWG officers or document editors. HOW TO VOTE: Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format: PWG-LOG Formal Vote--- Example: PWG-LOG Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes Rules: (1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vote and MUST contain a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No" vote int= o a "Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counted, per PWG Process/3= .0. (2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG Process/3.= 0. (3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any *technical* comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval. WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE: Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'): msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair/PWG-LOG Editor) blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG Secretary) jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" com (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair) Alan "dot" Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Alan Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secr= etary) Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote). Notes: (1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0 and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement. The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and the links are provided below. (2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues. The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf __________________________________________________ Alan Sukert, Product Security Specialist, PWG IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --_000_772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D308819962BUSA7109MB006naxer_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings:

VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL!  See voting instructions below.

This email announces the extension of the Formal Approval vote by the PWG m= embership on PWG-LOG Spec, which is located at:

   ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-i= ds-log10-20130207.pdf

The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at:

  ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-ids-log10.tx= t


VOTING PERIOD:  This Formal Vote which started on Tuesday 12 February = 2013
has been extended and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Monday 01 April= 2013.

Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain.


Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to
exercise their right to vote.

PWG Privacy Policy:  Your vote is confidential and will not be disclos= ed
by PWG officers or document editors.


HOW TO VOTE:

Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format:

PWG-LOG Formal Vote-<company name>-<voter's last name>-<Yes/= No/Abstain>

Example:

 PWG-LOG Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes


Rules:

(1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vo= te and MUST contain
a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No"= ; vote into a
"Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counte= d, per PWG Process/3.0.

(2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG = Process/3.0.

(3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, pe= r PWG Process/3.0.

(4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any  *technical* comment= s, per PWG
Process/3.0.

(5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval.


WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE:

Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing<= br> "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'):

msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair/PWG-= LOG Editor)

blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG S= ecretary)
 
jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" com (Joe Murdock, ID= S WG Chair)

Alan ”dot” Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Ala= n Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary)


Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote).


Notes:

(1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0
and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement.
The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and
the links are provided below.

(2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of<= br> the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues.

The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is
located at:

 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-proc= ess30.pdf

The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at:<= br>
 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-p= olicy.pdf
__________________________________________________
Alan Sukert, Product Security Specialist, PWG IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secret= ary
 
 
 
 
--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --_000_772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D308819962BUSA7109MB006naxer_-- --===============0604148435== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pwg-announce mailing list pwg-announce@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg-announce --===============0604148435==-- From pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Mon Mar 18 12:45:06 2013 Return-Path: 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 5C7EE21F8AC3 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:45:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.854 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.744, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rh-ZlYqVSG1d for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F82E11E80BA for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:44:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCF3791DF; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:43:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Delivered-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Received: from USA7109MR005.ACS-INC.COM (usa7109mr005.acs-inc.com [63.87.171.174]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29FBB791DB for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:43:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from usa7109ht004.na.xerox.net ([13.41.230.30]) by USA7109MR005.ACS-INC.COM with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 18 Mar 2013 14:43:28 -0500 Received: from USA7109MB006.na.xerox.net ([169.254.5.67]) by USA7109HT004.na.xerox.net ([13.41.230.30]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:43:28 -0500 From: "Sukert, Alan" To: "pwg-announce@pwg.org" Subject: [Pwg-Announce] Extension of PWG Formal Vote: HCD-NAP Thread-Topic: [Pwg-Announce] Extension of PWG Formal Vote: HCD-NAP Thread-Index: Ac4kENxLd6i7d+ykQQKVyvrUT1DgzQ== Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:43:28 +0000 Message-ID: <772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D308819964C@USA7109MB006.na.xerox.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [13.41.230.85] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: X-BeenThere: pwg-announce@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Printer Working Group Announcement List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0442408760==" Sender: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 5DCF3791DF.AE62B X-pwg-MailScanner-From: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org --===============0442408760== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D308819964CUSA7109MB006naxer_" --_000_772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D308819964CUSA7109MB006naxer_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings: VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL! See voting instructions below. This email announces the extension of the Formal Approval vote by the PWG m= embership on HCD NAP Spec, which is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-ids-napsoh10-20130211.pdf The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-hcd-nap10.txt VOTING PERIOD: This Formal Vote which started on Tuesday 12 February 2013 has been extended and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Monday 01 April= 2013. Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain. Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to exercise their right to vote. PWG Privacy Policy: Your vote is confidential and will not be disclosed by PWG officers or document editors. HOW TO VOTE: Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format: HCD-NAP Formal Vote--- Example: HCD-NAP Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes Rules: (1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vote and MUST contain a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No" vote int= o a "Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counted, per PWG Process/3= .0. (2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG Process/3.= 0. (3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any *technical* comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval. WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE: Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'): msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair) blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG Secretary) jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" com (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair/HCD Health Att= ributes Editor) Alan "dot" Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Alan Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secr= etary) Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote). Notes: (1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0 and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement. The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and the links are provided below. (2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues. The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf __________________________________________________ Alan Sukert, Product Security Specialist, PWG IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --_000_772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D308819964CUSA7109MB006naxer_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings:

VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL!  See voting instructions below.

This email announces the extension of the Formal Approval vote by the PWG m= embership on HCD NAP Spec, which is located at:

   ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/w= d-ids-napsoh10-20130211.pdf

The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at:

  ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-hcd-nap10.tx= t


VOTING PERIOD:  This Formal Vote which started on Tuesday 12 February = 2013
has been extended and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Monday 01 April= 2013.

Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain.


Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to
exercise their right to vote.

PWG Privacy Policy:  Your vote is confidential and will not be disclos= ed
by PWG officers or document editors.


HOW TO VOTE:

Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format:

 HCD-NAP Formal Vote-<company name>-<voter's last name>-&l= t;Yes/No/Abstain>

Example:

 HCD-NAP Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes


Rules:

(1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vo= te and MUST contain
a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No"= ; vote into a
"Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counte= d, per PWG Process/3.0.

(2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG = Process/3.0.

(3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, pe= r PWG Process/3.0.

(4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any  *technical* comment= s, per PWG
Process/3.0.

(5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval.


WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE:

Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing<= br> "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'):

msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair)

blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG S= ecretary)
 
jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" com (Joe Murdock, ID= S WG Chair/HCD Health Attributes Editor)

Alan ”dot” Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Ala= n Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary)


Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote).


Notes:

(1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0
and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement.
The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and
the links are provided below.

(2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of<= br> the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues.

The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is
located at:

 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-proc= ess30.pdf

The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at:<= br>
 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-p= olicy.pdf
__________________________________________________
Alan Sukert, Product Security Specialist, PWG IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secret= ary
 
 
 
 
--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --_000_772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D308819964CUSA7109MB006naxer_-- --===============0442408760== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pwg-announce mailing list pwg-announce@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg-announce --===============0442408760==-- From pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Mon Mar 18 12:48:05 2013 Return-Path: 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 4DC6D21F8F0F for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:48:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.226 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CBxb7j0DLP6L for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 536EA21F8D11 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E9F791F2; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:47:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Delivered-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Received: from USA7109MR003.ACS-INC.COM (usa7109mr003.acs-inc.com [63.101.151.12]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAFF479244 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:46:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from usa7109ht002.na.xerox.net ([13.41.230.32]) by USA7109MR003.ACS-INC.COM with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 18 Mar 2013 14:46:17 -0500 Received: from USA7109MB006.na.xerox.net ([169.254.5.67]) by USA7109HT002.na.xerox.net ([13.41.230.32]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:46:14 -0500 From: "Sukert, Alan" To: "pwg-announce@pwg.org" Subject: [Pwg-Announce] Extension of PWG Formal Vote: HCD Health Attributes Thread-Topic: [Pwg-Announce] Extension of PWG Formal Vote: HCD Health Attributes Thread-Index: Ac4kET+Cv1y2aYq2RE6FdB6mtDm0TA== Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:46:14 +0000 Message-ID: <772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D3088199660@USA7109MB006.na.xerox.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [13.41.230.85] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: X-BeenThere: pwg-announce@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Printer Working Group Announcement List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2051027241==" Sender: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 07E9F791F2.ACEE2 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org --===============2051027241== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D3088199660USA7109MB006naxer_" --_000_772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D3088199660USA7109MB006naxer_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings: VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL! See voting instructions below. This email announces the extension of the Formal Approval vote by the PWG m= embership on HCD Health Attributes Spec, which is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-idsattributes10-20130211.pdf The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-hcd-attr10.txt VOTING PERIOD: This Formal Vote which started on Tuesday 12 February 2013 has been extended and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Monday 01 April= 2013. Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain. Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to exercise their right to vote. PWG Privacy Policy: Your vote is confidential and will not be disclosed by PWG officers or document editors. HOW TO VOTE: Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format: HCD Health Attributes Formal Vote--- Example: HCD Health Attributes Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes Rules: (1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vote and MUST contain a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No" vote int= o a "Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counted, per PWG Process/3= .0. (2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG Process/3.= 0. (3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any *technical* comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval. WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE: Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'): msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair) blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG Secretary) jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" com (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair/HCD Health Att= ributes Editor) Alan "dot" Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Alan Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secr= etary) Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote). Notes: (1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0 and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement. The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and the links are provided below. (2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues. The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf __________________________________________________ Alan Sukert, Product Security Specialist, PWG IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --_000_772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D3088199660USA7109MB006naxer_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings:

VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL!  See voting instructions below.

This email announces the extension of the Formal Approval vote by the PWG m= embership on HCD Health Attributes Spec, which is located at:

   ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/w= d/wd-idsattributes10-20130211.pdf

The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at:

   ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-hcd-a= ttr10.txt


VOTING PERIOD:  This Formal Vote which started on Tuesday 12 February = 2013
has been extended and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Monday 01 April= 2013.

Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain.


Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to
exercise their right to vote.

PWG Privacy Policy:  Your vote is confidential and will not be disclos= ed
by PWG officers or document editors.


HOW TO VOTE:

Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format:

 HCD Health Attributes Formal Vote-<company name>-<voter's la= st name>-<Yes/No/Abstain>

Example:

 HCD Health Attributes Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes


Rules:

(1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vo= te and MUST contain
a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No"= ; vote into a
"Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counte= d, per PWG Process/3.0.

(2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG = Process/3.0.

(3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, pe= r PWG Process/3.0.

(4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any  *technical* comment= s, per PWG
Process/3.0.

(5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval.


WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE:

Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing<= br> "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'):

msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair)

blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG S= ecretary)
 
jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" com (Joe Murdock, ID= S WG Chair/HCD Health Attributes Editor)

Alan ”dot” Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Ala= n Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary)


Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote).


Notes:

(1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0
and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement.
The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and
the links are provided below.

(2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of<= br> the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues.

The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is
located at:

 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-proc= ess30.pdf

The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at:<= br>
 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-p= olicy.pdf
__________________________________________________
Alan Sukert, Product Security Specialist, PWG IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secret= ary
 
 
 
--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --_000_772924F5A52E6846866619AB345D3088199660USA7109MB006naxer_-- --===============2051027241== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pwg-announce mailing list pwg-announce@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg-announce --===============2051027241==-- From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Wed Mar 20 09:23:39 2013 Return-Path: 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 AAD4821F9057 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:23:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L3fLWWfYOiIB for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B25521F9040 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89FB97923F; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:23:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471987923E for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:22:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id e14so466741iej.2 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:22:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=5QZ5ac8wdrit07l7etG0Tbqaa4VctzTrFWnlUFpOc6I=; b=Os6azpGmhGcwqP6Tae1IVgrUmntd39TbuGNwygFpYLJZJRrT6f/i/7k5PGv5xMHgBc 9+tRkS08bgQHIqiS/tKqeTt9XRV5TGIFb7TApMEvI18Wpyjccl3ipIagyZJdduapuCGD ejhuoglewKN9bJ4c1oWHE7Iza4r7pw5+HiMpEvoFPbjf0APQ8w9lpDlzQ8x2Zw/or1Ns kxotEIypG2k6hSrkI7O2WwRY2qnDvkLm7BA5crMqYyuqktiM1baDeRE6ZkNmQ1a4wSrd U8OTwsVVfsZmQQUNZ7qosccy6LhWWB2Hs29fWkc7hfMGulKZAXGibfF1l7vNrlxYUMDg 0k5Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.140.67 with SMTP id re3mr4609943igb.100.1363796577654; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.159.232 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:22:57 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ira McDonald To: ipp@pwg.org, Ira McDonald X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: Subject: [IPP] Fwd: Errata for RFC 4122 (UUID-based URN) X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0208917769==" Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 89FB97923F.AB5DE X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org --===============0208917769== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f838b958ea0f604d85da20d --e89a8f838b958ea0f604d85da20d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, It turns out that RFC 4122 has some serious problems of inconsistent numbering of bits and bytes in the UUID. Please read carefully - implementors beware, if you are trying to *construct* a UUID by this spec, you may have implementation bugs - if you are only taking OS-generated UUID values and wrapping them in the URN syntax, then you will not have problems. Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG 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 Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Benoit Claise Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:39 AM Subject: [eman] Fwd: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC4122 (3546) To: eman mailing list FYI, since the UUID is used in EMAN Regards, Benoit -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC4122 (3546) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:28:20 -0700 (PDT) From: RFC Errata System To: safinaskar@mail.ru, paulle@microsoft.com, michael@refactored-networks.com, rsalz@datapower.com CC: barryleiba@computer.org, iesg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC4122, "A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at:http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4122&eid=3546 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Technical Reported by: Askar Safin Date Reported: 2013-03-14 Held by: Barry Leiba (IESG) Section: 4.1.3 Original Text ------------- The version number is in the most significant 4 bits of the time stamp (bits 4 through 7 of the time_hi_and_version field). Corrected Text -------------- The version number is in the most significant 4 bits of the time stamp (bits 0 through 3 of the time_hi_and_version field). Notes ----- We use network order (as far as I know, we use network order in this RFC both for bits and bytes). So, the most significant bits comes first and they are located in first bytes. So, 0 through 3. ---VERIFIER NOTES --- This erratum is correct as far as it goes, but, given other text in the RFC, so is erratum 1957. There is a pervasive problem in this RFC with inconsistent and unclear usage of bit numbering, which switches between several conventions. The diagram in Section 4.1.2 uses left-to-right bit numbering (the most significant bit is numbered 0), but much of the text (such as in Section 4.2.2) uses right-to-left bit numbering (the least significant bit is numbered 0). Most of the text uses big-ending byte order (network byte order), but some seems to assume little-ending, probably mistakes that come from the authors' familiarity with that convention. With respect to the text in question, the first sentence of Section 4.1.3, we have the following situation: - The original text is correct if we assume right-to-left bit numbering and little-endian byte order. - Erratum 1957 is correct if we assume right-to-left bit numbering and big-endian byte order. This change also makes the first sentence of Section 4.1.3 consistent with the sixth bullet in Section 4.2.2. - Erratum 3546 is correct if we assume left-to-right bit numbering and big-endian byte order. In the end, the real point is that this document needs a revision that carefully and thoroughly fixes every instance of byte numbering (or removes the byte numbering and refers only to "most significant" and "least significant"). Such a revision should also double-check the sample code in Appendix A to be sure it works in both big-ending and little-endian machines. Happily, it's not likely that misunderstandings here will cause actual interoperability problems: this isn't a situation where things need to be disassembled and reassembled. The algorithm merely turns a UUID into a URN, and the URN is thereafter a "black box", an unchanged identifier. The only issue would be whether different interpretations of the document would turn two different UUIDs into the same URN, and, given the number of bits involved, the likelihood of collisions in practice is small. -------------------------------------- RFC4122 (draft-mealling-uuid-urn-05) -------------------------------------- Title : A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace Publication Date : July 2005 Author(s) : P. Leach, M. Mealling, R. Salz Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IETF - NON WORKING GROUP Area : N/A Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ eman mailing list eman@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --e89a8f838b958ea0f604d85da20d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

It turns out that RFC 4122 has some serious problems of
inco= nsistent numbering of bits and bytes in the UUID.

Please read carefu= lly - implementors beware, if you are
trying to *construct* a UUID by th= is spec, you may have
implementation bugs - if you are only taking OS-generated
UUID values an= d wrapping them in the URN syntax, then
you will not have problems.

Cheers,
- Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician /= Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer = Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted = Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF D= esignated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites= .google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://si= tes.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroo= fmusic@gmail.com
Winter=A0 579 Park Place=A0 Saline, MI=A0 48176=A0 = 734-944-0094
Summer=A0 PO Box 221=A0 Grand Marais, MI 49839=A0 906-494-2= 434



---------- Forwarded message ----------<= br>From: Benoit Claise = <bclaise@cisco.com>Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:39 AM
Subject: [eman] Fwd: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC4122 (3546)
To= : eman mailing list <eman@ietf.org&= gt;


=20=20 =20=20=20=20 =20=20
FYI, since the UUID is used in EMAN

Regards, Benoit


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC4122 (3546)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
To: saf= inaskar@mail.ru, paulle@microsoft.com, michael@refactored-networks.com, rsalz@datapower.com
CC: barryleiba@computer.org, iesg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org 


The following errata report has been held for document update=20
for RFC4122, "A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace&quo=
t;.=20

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=
=3D4122&eid=3D3546

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported by: Askar Safin <safinaskar@mail.ru>
Date Reported: 2013-03-14
Held by: Barry Leiba (IESG)

Section: 4.1.3

Original Text
-------------
The version number is in the most significant 4 bits of the time
stamp (bits 4 through 7 of the time_hi_and_version field).

Corrected Text
--------------
The version number is in the most significant 4 bits of the time
stamp (bits 0 through 3 of the time_hi_and_version field).

Notes
-----
We use network order (as far as I know, we use network order in this RFC bo=
th for bits and bytes). So, the most significant bits comes first and they =
are located in first bytes. So, 0 through 3.

---VERIFIER NOTES ---
This erratum is correct as far as it goes, but, given other text in the RFC=
, so is erratum 1957.  There is a pervasive problem in this RFC with incons=
istent and unclear usage of bit numbering, which switches between several c=
onventions.  The diagram in Section 4.1.2 uses left-to-right bit numbering =
(the most significant bit is numbered 0), but much of the text (such as in =
Section 4.2.2) uses right-to-left bit numbering (the least significant bit =
is numbered 0).  Most of the text uses big-ending byte order (network byte =
order), but some seems to assume little-ending, probably mistakes that come=
 from the authors' familiarity with that convention.

With respect to the text in question, the first sentence of Section 4.1.3, =
we have the following situation:

- The original text is correct if we assume right-to-left bit numbering and=
 little-endian byte order.

- Erratum 1957 is correct if we assume right-to-left bit numbering and big-=
endian byte order.  This change also makes the first sentence of Section 4.=
1.3 consistent with the sixth bullet in Section 4.2.2.

- Erratum 3546 is correct if we assume left-to-right bit numbering and big-=
endian byte order.

In the end, the real point is that this document needs a revision that care=
fully and thoroughly fixes every instance of byte numbering (or removes the=
 byte numbering and refers only to "most significant" and "l=
east significant").  Such a revision should also double-check the samp=
le code in Appendix A to be sure it works in both big-ending and little-end=
ian machines.

Happily, it's not likely that misunderstandings here will cause actual =
interoperability problems: this isn't a situation where things need to =
be disassembled and reassembled.  The algorithm merely turns a UUID into a =
URN, and the URN is thereafter a "black box", an unchanged identi=
fier.  The only issue would be whether different interpretations of the doc=
ument would turn two different UUIDs into the same URN, and, given the numb=
er of bits involved, the likelihood of collisions in practice is small.

--------------------------------------
RFC4122 (draft-mealling-uuid-urn-05)
--------------------------------------
Title               : A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace
Publication Date    : July 2005
Author(s)           : P. Leach, M. Mealling, R. Salz
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area                : N/A
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG



_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman



--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --e89a8f838b958ea0f604d85da20d-- --===============0208917769== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp --===============0208917769==-- From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Wed Mar 20 22:29:29 2013 Return-Path: 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 02C9921F8FDF for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:29:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bfHl3S5eJMJP for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:29:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B26421F8FD8 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:29:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BDB79243; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 01:29:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from g4t0015.houston.hp.com (g4t0015.houston.hp.com [15.201.24.18]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE08A79240 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 01:28:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from G4W6310.americas.hpqcorp.net (g4w6310.houston.hp.com [16.210.26.217]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by g4t0015.houston.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C25C8285 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:28:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from G4W6302.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.210.26.227) by G4W6310.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.210.26.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.9; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:27:01 +0000 Received: from G4W3295.americas.hpqcorp.net ([169.254.3.62]) by G4W6302.americas.hpqcorp.net ([16.210.26.227]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:27:00 +0000 From: "Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect)" To: "" Thread-Topic: Updated draft of IPP Best Practices available for review Thread-Index: AQHOJfS2NQ6G+ifB9k+XCUzVM+yhyQ== Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:27:00 +0000 Message-ID: <50FC15E3-6F32-4BEC-8423-DC80DF7162D0@hp.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [15.201.58.29] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <113B9DB14E3D3F4E96E228388BE5AC70@Compaq.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Subject: [IPP] Updated draft of IPP Best Practices available for review X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: E7BDB79243.A8ADD X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Greetings, I have posted an updated draft of the IPP Best Practices whitepaper: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/whitepaper/tb-ipp-best-practices-20130320.pdf ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/whitepaper/tb-ipp-best-practices-20130320-re= v.pdf ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/whitepaper/tb-ipp-best-practices-20130320.do= cx Generally updated based on notes from the 2013-02-25 teleconference. Still= have some outstanding issues that haven't been resolved but wanted to get = another draft out for review rather than wait and have it dive below the su= rface again. Cheers, Smith --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Sat Mar 23 09:33:37 2013 Return-Path: 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 DFF5221F88A1 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:33:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fj3+rEABRkuj for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78DE21F8895 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:33:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA807922C; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:33:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com (mail-ie0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE1FD79229 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id k11so5991923iea.10 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:32:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=1LuoMAKcizgMf2bu7N2AOwGrTBHWsGq6aFcGTv+mBbQ=; b=qnY6fxNED3ptlvxe7rPKf4opiARbxivMXZ/yjvdLJsU7KOeJXj3zyDz6cshZ5cGGMM A5EIwWlfLVRwkYKpXW34Qi4K5A0drzfchIi8fuXNDAwsZiaik9sPe7f1jVGZXCWSgnCi v5GQYKnA7c+j8xhG6uiFTg3NzPlvR1NE7fYsnuOLDbENMBUSZ4QCqtbkuJuS2XJsYeDD htoM0jnA/L92xEUrnD200nz3gB9vANgscMP8h57ef1yxNiHbtL9gxBlvWYVEttw7qS5c 869X57gXyTHCp9j7lhlnsyClfkFJSPbM7gnqQSRC7JtsYuqUN66DPMlv1YYYT3ogrIBB Ak7A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.208.40 with SMTP id mb8mr7368026igc.91.1364056375990; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.159.232 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:32:55 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ira McDonald To: ipp@pwg.org, Ira McDonald X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: Subject: [IPP] IPP Agenda - 3-5pm Eastern 11 March 2013 X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1408094433==" Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 0CA807922C.A9422 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org --===============1408094433== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340345bea03b04d89a1f4b --14dae9340345bea03b04d89a1f4b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, Our next IPP WG call will be this Monday! Monday 25 March 12-2pm US Pacific / 3-5pm US Eastern Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239 Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300 (Primary) Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570 (Backup) Attendee Access Code: *******# Attendee ID Code: # (empty) ------------------------------------------------------- Meeting information ------------------------------------------------------- Date: Every Monday, from Monday, July 9, 2012 to no end date Time: 12:00 pm, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco) Meeting Number: 624 587 312 Meeting Password: pwg123 ------------------------------------------------------- To start or join the online meeting ------------------------------------------------------- Go to https://appleinc.webex.com/appleinc/j.php?ED=204995427&UID=504472682&PW=NNzM5MmRlMzBl&RT=MiM0 ------------------------------------------------------- Agenda: (1) PWG IP Policy and Minute Taker - Mike? (2) Approve IPP minutes from previous meeting - ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-concall-minutes-20130311.pdf -- IPP WG call on 25 February (3) Status of PWG Formal Vote on MSN2 (ends on 28 March) - ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-pwgmsn20-20130125-rev.pdf (4) Status of IPP FaxOut (Mike) - ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippfaxout10-20130227-rev.pdf - reviewed on 11 March and approved for Last Call - Mike to update (5) Status of IPP Everywhere Self-Certification (Mike) - http://www.pwg.org/archives/ipp/2013/016049.html - Mike is working on PR for IPP EW (FAQ, blog, etc.) (6) Intro to IPP Paid Printing Extensions (Mike) - ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/whitepaper/tb-ipppaid-sweet-20130314.pdf (7) Review of IPP Best Practices (Smith) - ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/whitepaper/tb-ipp-best-practices-20130320-rev.pdf (8) Next steps - IPP WG teleconference on Monday 8 April - IPP WG teleconference on Monday 22 April Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG 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 Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --14dae9340345bea03b04d89a1f4b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

Our next IPP WG call will be this Monday!

Monday 25 March 12-2pm US Pacific / 3-= 5pm US Eastern

Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239=
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300 (Primary)
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570 (Backup)

Attendee A= ccess Code: *******#
Attendee ID Code: # (empty)

--= -----------------------------------------------------
Meeting information
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Every Monday, from Monday, July 9, 2012 to no end date
Time: 12:= 00 pm, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco)
Meeting Number: 624 587 312=
Meeting Password: pwg123
-----------------------------------------------= --------
To start or join the online meeting
------------------------= -------------------------------
Go to https://appleinc.webex.com/appleinc/j.ph= p?ED=3D204995427&UID=3D504472682&PW=3DNNzM5MmRlMzBl&RT=3DMiM0
-------------------------------------------------------

= Agenda:
(1) PWG IP Policy and Mi= nute Taker
- Mike?

(2) Approve IPP= minutes from previous meeting
- ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-c= oncall-minutes-20130311.pdf
-- IPP WG call on 25 February

(3) Status of PWG Formal Vote on MSN2 (ends on 28 March)
- ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-pwgmsn20-20130125-rev.pdf

(4) Status of IPP FaxOut (Mike)<= br>- ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippfaxout10-20130227-rev.pdf
- reviewed on 11 March and approved for Last Call - Mike to update

(= 5) Status of IPP Everywhere Self-Certification (M= ike)
- http://www.pwg.org/archives/ipp/2013/016049= .html
- Mike is working on PR for IPP EW (FAQ, blog, etc.)

(6= ) Intro to IPP Paid Printing Extensions (Mike)
- ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/whitepaper/tb-ipp= paid-sweet-20130314.pdf

(7) Review of IPP Best Practices (Smith)=
- ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/whitepap= er/tb-ipp-best-practices-20130320-rev.pdf

(8) Next steps
- IPP WG teleconference on Monday 8 Apri= l
- IPP WG teleconference on Monday 22= April

Cheers,
- Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician / S= oftware Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretar= y - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded System= s Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roo= f Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.= com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthincmailto:bluer= oofmusic@gmail.com
Winter=A0 579 Park Place=A0 Saline, MI=A0 48176=A0 734-944-0094
Summer= =A0 PO Box 221=A0 Grand Marais, MI 49839=A0 906-494-2434


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --14dae9340345bea03b04d89a1f4b-- --===============1408094433== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp --===============1408094433==-- From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Mon Mar 25 16:36:58 2013 Return-Path: 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 108F521F868E for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:36:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id khdmB0fWpWLe for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:36:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F2D21F867E for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:36:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3EA6791A5; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:36:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from mail-out.apple.com (bramley.apple.com [17.151.62.49]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBCF791A4 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:36:18 -0400 (EDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from relay5.apple.com ([17.128.113.88]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MK800L1RPK8T2K0@mail-out.apple.com> for ipp@pwg.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:36:17 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807158-b7fa36d000006cd2-f3-5150df6ff979 Received: from [17.153.100.91] (Unknown_Domain [17.153.100.91]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay5.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 8E.1B.27858.07FD0515; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:36:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Sweet Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:36:13 -0400 To: ipp@pwg.org Message-id: <2DACEA8D-1B36-47CF-B302-EE610073A92E@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1695) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrNJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiODMlWrfwfkCgwed5+hbH9r1ksTjyLdaB yWPryR9sHvMWT2cKYIrisklJzcksSy3St0vgynh1soOp4ChTxeX5EQ2Mk5m6GDk5JARMJGb2 b2aGsMUkLtxbzwZiCwn0Mkm8fx4JYrMJqEn8ntTHCmIzC2hJ3Pj3kgnClpfY/nYOUC8HB4uA qsSOrVUgYWEBC4nmme8ZQWwRAX6JiRchWnkFbCS2dN+BsvUkzm05xAqxVlbiy90JjBMYeWYh 2TALyYZZSFoWMDKvYhQoSs1JrDTVSywoyEnVS87P3cQICpKGwogdjP+XWR1iFOBgVOLh3RAc ECjEmlhWXJl7iFGCg1lJhPfYBaAQb0piZVVqUX58UWlOavEhRmkOFiVx3vttQCmB9MSS1OzU 1ILUIpgsEwenVAPj1moOufKX7V/eP51w9dyUL+1vjQWfF2gu8uPOt9zz4UGssenGkzbfqphZ vQWnnCufdciclWPXztWHZ/2U8F/IEqC2wNLhWb8ki9kaGZN8Ftujk+fkn1Jxqtluc0Mmaf/y JUIPZhwovnsv6/mjoy+nZSnl3X910XpZT2Zq+kcpe7G3p0J1tzDsVWIpzkg01GIuKk4EABQL dHwOAgAA X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Subject: [IPP] Minutes posted from today's IPP conference call X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: C3EA6791A5.A8DE9 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org All, I have posted the minutes to today's IPP conference call to: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-concall-minutes-20130325.pdf Our next conference call is April 8, 2013 at 3pm ET. _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Mon Mar 25 20:52:15 2013 Return-Path: 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 D22DF21F88B9 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:52:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lUse6jV8V-+6 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 264B621F88A3 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4E3791AC; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 23:51:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from atl4mhob12.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob12.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.50]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A139A791AA for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 23:51:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.211]) by atl4mhob12.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r2Q3pfH9020651 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 23:51:41 -0400 Received: (qmail 2050 invoked by uid 0); 26 Mar 2013 03:51:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.132?) (rturner@amalfisystems.com@76.95.36.90) by 0 with ESMTPA; 26 Mar 2013 03:51:41 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Subject: Re: [IPP] Minutes posted from today's IPP conference call From: Randy Turner In-Reply-To: <2DACEA8D-1B36-47CF-B302-EE610073A92E@apple.com> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:51:40 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7A21DA4B-743E-4E04-AB33-AF8DECB46541@amalfisystems.com> References: <2DACEA8D-1B36-47CF-B302-EE610073A92E@apple.com> To: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: EB4E3791AC.A9285 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org After taking a quick look at the *initial* IPP Paid Printing Extensions pro= posal, I think a dedicated URI name space for anything *paid* related is a = good idea, and I would probably link this namespace to the work we need to = do on XACML authorization. Seems like *payment* might just be another coef= ficient in an equation that calculates the overall *authorization dispositi= on* for a user trying to use a resource -- I meant to join the call today (Mon, 3/25), but had a last minute commit= ment I had to deal with. I will try and send additional thoughts/comments = soon.=20=20 R. On Mar 25, 2013, at 4:36 PM, Michael Sweet wrote: > All, >=20 > I have posted the minutes to today's IPP conference call to: >=20 > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-concall-minutes-20130325.pdf >=20 > Our next conference call is April 8, 2013 at 3pm ET. >=20 > _________________________________________________________ > Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair >=20 >=20 > --=20 > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ipp mailing list > ipp@pwg.org > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp >=20 --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Tue Mar 26 09:07:10 2013 Return-Path: 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 806B41F0CE0 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:07:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l-AaS+wNi2XL for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71041F0C74 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03771791CF; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:06:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from mail-out.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.151.62.51]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023AE791A6 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:06:36 -0400 (EDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from relay8.apple.com ([17.128.113.102]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MK900M3KZCWITF0@mail-out.apple.com> for ipp@pwg.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:05:39 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807166-b7ff16d0000078d0-ce-5151c751c3d7 Received: from [17.153.57.234] (Unknown_Domain [17.153.57.234]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay8.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id C0.C6.30928.257C1515; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:05:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [IPP] Minutes posted from today's IPP conference call From: Michael Sweet In-reply-to: <7A21DA4B-743E-4E04-AB33-AF8DECB46541@amalfisystems.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:05:39 -0400 Message-id: References: <2DACEA8D-1B36-47CF-B302-EE610073A92E@apple.com> <7A21DA4B-743E-4E04-AB33-AF8DECB46541@amalfisystems.com> To: Randy Turner X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrDLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiONPylW7w8cBAgxvNHBbH9r1ksTjyLdZi z9o/bA7MHstPfmH22HryB5vHvMXTmQKYo7hsUlJzMstSi/TtErgyZizaxFrwX7Ti5IRjTA2M /wS7GDk5JARMJD48XsIIYYtJXLi3nq2LkYtDSKCXSeLllblgCWEBJ4ntkyYxgdi8AnoS1759 ZQexmQW0JG78ewkWZxNQk/g9qY8VxOYUcJX4MuMxM4jNIqAqsfnTK6h6fomDvR+YIWxtiWUL XzNDzLSROL58CwuILSRQKtG1bw/YXhEBHYm2p+dYII6TlXj9/A3LBEb+WUjOmIXkjFlIxi5g ZF7FKFCUmpNYaaGXWFCQk6qXnJ+7iREUhg2FaTsYm5ZbHWIU4GBU4uHdEBwQKMSaWFZcmXuI UYKDWUmEV3BjYKAQb0piZVVqUX58UWlOavEhRmkOFiVx3odtQNUC6YklqdmpqQWpRTBZJg5O qQbGhPVqygs1mVtYVhi4eDAXshi/EHD95+Qrf/hQUver2cHKwnw/WGbzP9d6W3v0o+6XBbP4 7svl74kLZVQ8cj/bREzzlR5nWF2jAmfQhc/GQhdY7mmnGbeeElHn9b3u3XPwgVvhvP93oznq 1qyRPVBxwXxf5uHnATp8yfYrq599uejeza4wd4kSS3FGoqEWc1FxIgBY3f4xPwIAAA== X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: ipp@pwg.org X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 03771791CF.A7857 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Randy, On 2013-03-25, at 11:51 PM, Randy Turner wrote: > > After taking a quick look at the *initial* IPP Paid Printing Extensions proposal, I think a dedicated URI name space for anything *paid* related is a good idea, and I would probably link this namespace to the work we need to do on XACML authorization. For the purposes of this specification I am just interested in conveying the authorization as a URI so that implementations can choose the namespace that makes the most sense for them. If we can separately define a namespace that is "ideal" for transaction-based imaging, all the better. > Seems like *payment* might just be another coefficient in an equation that calculates the overall *authorization disposition* for a user trying to use a resource > -- I meant to join the call today (Mon, 3/25), but had a last minute commitment I had to deal with. I will try and send additional thoughts/comments soon. Thanks! FWIW, the spec is titled "paid printing" but it really just defines a generic transaction-based printing mechanism. The "payment" portion is abstracted out - all we care about is enabling printing transactions so that a payment system can actually be implemented: have the necessary metrics, be able to associate a job with a transaction (job-authorization-uri), and have the status/reporting infrastructure in place so that a Client can react accordingly to issues associated with the transaction. Certainly a paid Printer's access policy will be driven by the authorization URI, whether defined using XACML or some other method... > > R. > > On Mar 25, 2013, at 4:36 PM, Michael Sweet wrote: > >> All, >> >> I have posted the minutes to today's IPP conference call to: >> >> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-concall-minutes-20130325.pdf >> >> Our next conference call is April 8, 2013 at 3pm ET. >> >> _________________________________________________________ >> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ipp mailing list >> ipp@pwg.org >> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp >> > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > _______________________________________________ > ipp mailing list > ipp@pwg.org > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Tue Mar 26 10:33:24 2013 Return-Path: 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 0FDFF21F856D for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:33:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NwVTq6yfKeHe for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFBB521F855F for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4818791D6; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:32:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.45]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9044791A7 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:32:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.211]) by atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r2QHWUG7023774 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:32:30 -0400 Received: (qmail 18960 invoked by uid 0); 26 Mar 2013 17:32:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.131?) (rturner@amalfisystems.com@76.95.36.90) by 0 with ESMTPA; 26 Mar 2013 17:32:30 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Subject: Re: [IPP] Minutes posted from today's IPP conference call From: Randy Turner In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:32:38 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <2DACEA8D-1B36-47CF-B302-EE610073A92E@apple.com> <7A21DA4B-743E-4E04-AB33-AF8DECB46541@amalfisystems.com> To: "ipp@pwg.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: D4818791D6.A8147 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Hi Mike, I envisioned one of the outputs of a XACML procedure to be an authorization= token that is securely attached/associated/derived-from a particular reque= st. Having a XACML predicate that derives its' output from some external paymen= t/accounting system would allow a "paid" transaction -- what I was trying t= o avoid was having two different definitions of what it means for an imagin= g job to be "authorized" -- if our overall authorization goals for imaging = jobs could subsume the payment-requirement, then we could coalesce the auth= orization space, and define any and all abstractions as a part of the autho= rization scope for imaging. It's just a "goal" that I've had in mind to have any and all authorization = requirements (user-capability, payments, security, etc.) under a common "au= thorization umbrella" that does in fact do what you allude to in your propo= sal, and that means return an authorization token, ideally secured and atta= ched/associated with a particular imaging job request (tied back to the par= ameters of the job ticket). I'm still digesting/processing the proposal and its' implications so I may = have something more concrete to say about this at a future tel-conference o= r possibly in Cupertino. That being said, it's good to see that some of th= e operational aspects (authorization URI or "token" of some sort) of the "a= uthorization problem" have been exposed, which is part of what I have been = looking at with an overall authorization service. R. On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Michael Sweet wrote: > Randy, >=20 > On 2013-03-25, at 11:51 PM, Randy Turner wrot= e: >>=20 >> After taking a quick look at the *initial* IPP Paid Printing Extensions = proposal, I think a dedicated URI name space for anything *paid* related is= a good idea, and I would probably link this namespace to the work we need = to do on XACML authorization. >=20 > For the purposes of this specification I am just interested in conveying = the authorization as a URI so that implementations can choose the namespace= that makes the most sense for them. If we can separately define a namespa= ce that is "ideal" for transaction-based imaging, all the better. >=20 >> Seems like *payment* might just be another coefficient in an equation th= at calculates the overall *authorization disposition* for a user trying to = use a resource >> -- I meant to join the call today (Mon, 3/25), but had a last minute com= mitment I had to deal with. I will try and send additional thoughts/commen= ts soon.=20=20 >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > FWIW, the spec is titled "paid printing" but it really just defines a gen= eric transaction-based printing mechanism. The "payment" portion is abstra= cted out - all we care about is enabling printing transactions so that a pa= yment system can actually be implemented: have the necessary metrics, be ab= le to associate a job with a transaction (job-authorization-uri), and have = the status/reporting infrastructure in place so that a Client can react acc= ordingly to issues associated with the transaction. Certainly a paid Print= er's access policy will be driven by the authorization URI, whether defined= using XACML or some other method... >=20 >>=20 >> R. >>=20 >> On Mar 25, 2013, at 4:36 PM, Michael Sweet wrote: >>=20 >>> All, >>>=20 >>> I have posted the minutes to today's IPP conference call to: >>>=20 >>> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/minutes/ippv2-concall-minutes-20130325.p= df >>>=20 >>> Our next conference call is April 8, 2013 at 3pm ET. >>>=20 >>> _________________________________________________________ >>> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> --=20 >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>> believed to be clean. >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ipp mailing list >>> ipp@pwg.org >>> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> ipp mailing list >> ipp@pwg.org >> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp >=20 > _________________________________________________________ > Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair >=20 >=20 --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp From pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Tue Mar 26 11:32:29 2013 Return-Path: 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 BCA3521F8C11 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:32:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vwa0u2U24cZL for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 227DC21F8BD9 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78824791E4; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:31:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Delivered-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Received: from mail4.sharplabs.com (mail4.sharplabs.com [216.65.151.214]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2757C791DF for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:31:26 -0400 (EDT) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1364322604-020808090176bf0001-asKuw5 Received: from WABCASP2.sharpamericas.com ([172.29.224.252]) by mail4.sharplabs.com with ESMTP id jOdPojGAZfVChn2X for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:30:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: jmurdock@sharplabs.com Received: from WABEXCHP1.sharpamericas.com ([fe80::f930:84ca:49e6:2cbd]) by WABCASP2.sharpamericas.com ([172.29.224.3]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:30:04 -0700 From: "Murdock, Joe" X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: fe80::f930:84ca:49e6:2cbd To: "pwg-announce@pwg.org" Subject: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder - Extension of PWG Formal Vote: PWG-LOG Thread-Topic: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder - Extension of PWG Formal Vote: PWG-LOG X-ASG-Orig-Subj: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder - Extension of PWG Formal Vote: PWG-LOG Thread-Index: Ac4qT+dNwTbOz5UhSrGM6wXVodvyXQ== Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:30:03 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.29.229.74] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Barracuda-Connect: UNKNOWN[172.29.224.252] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1364322604 X-Barracuda-URL: http://mail4.enet.sharplabs.com:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi Received-SPF: none (sharplabs.com: jmurdock@sharplabs.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at sharplabs.com X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.14 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.14 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=CN_BODY_332, HTML_MESSAGE, THREAD_INDEX, THREAD_TOPIC X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.126314 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.01 THREAD_INDEX thread-index: AcO7Y8iR61tzADqsRmmc5wNiFHEOig== 0.01 THREAD_TOPIC Thread-Topic: ...(Japanese Subject)... 0.12 CN_BODY_332 BODY: CN_BODY_332 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-BeenThere: pwg-announce@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Printer Working Group Announcement List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1108421024==" Sender: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 78824791E4.AD401 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org --===============1108421024== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377ED840wabexchp1sharpa_" --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377ED840wabexchp1sharpa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings: VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL! See voting instructions below. This email announces the extension of the Formal Approval vote by the PWG m= embership on PWG-LOG Spec, which is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-ids-log10-20130207.pdf The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-ids-log10.txt VOTING PERIOD: This Formal Vote which started on Tuesday 12 February 2013 has been extended and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Monday 01 April= 2013. Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain. Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to exercise their right to vote. PWG Privacy Policy: Your vote is confidential and will not be disclosed by PWG officers or document editors. HOW TO VOTE: Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format: PWG-LOG Formal Vote--- Example: PWG-LOG Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes Rules: (1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vote and MUST contain a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No" vote int= o a "Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counted, per PWG Process/3= .0. (2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG Process/3.= 0. (3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any *technical* comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval. WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE: Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'): msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair/PWG-LOG Editor) blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG Secretary) jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" com (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair) Alan "dot" Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Alan Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secr= etary) Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote). Notes: (1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0 and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement. The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and the links are provided below. (2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues. The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf __________________________________________________ Alan Sukert, Product Security Specialist, PWG IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary --------------------------------------- Joe Murdock Principal Engineer and Researcher Chair IEEE/ISTO Printer Working Group Imaging Device Security Sharp Labs of America 5750 NW Pacific Rim Blvd Camas, WA 98607 (360) 817-7542 jmurdock@sharplabs.com --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377ED840wabexchp1sharpa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

Greetings:

VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL!  See voting instructions below.

This email announces the extension of the Formal Approval vote by the PWG m= embership on PWG-LOG Spec, which is located at:

   ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-ids-log10-20130207.pdf

The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at:

  ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-ids-log10.txt


VOTING PERIOD:  This Formal Vote which started on Tuesday 12 February = 2013
has been extended and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Monday 01 April= 2013.

Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain.


Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to
exercise their right to vote.

PWG Privacy Policy:  Your vote is confidential and will not be disclos= ed
by PWG officers or document editors.


HOW TO VOTE:

Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format:

PWG-LOG Formal Vote-<company name>-<voter's last name>-<Yes/= No/Abstain>

Example:

 PWG-LOG Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes


Rules:

(1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vo= te and MUST contain
a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No"= ; vote into a
"Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counte= d, per PWG Process/3.0.

(2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG = Process/3.0.

(3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, pe= r PWG Process/3.0.

(4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any  *technical* comment= s, per PWG
Process/3.0.

(5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval.


WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE:

Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing<= br> "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'):

msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair/PWG-= LOG Editor)

blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG S= ecretary)

 

jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" co= m (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair)

Alan ”dot” Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Ala= n Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary)


Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote).


Notes:

(1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0
and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement.
The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and
the links are provided below.

(2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of<= br> the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues.

The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is
located at:

 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf

The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at:<= br>
 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf=

__________________________________________________

Alan Sukert, Product Security Specialist, PWG IDS WG= Vice-Chair/Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------= -------------------

Joe Murdock

Principal Engineer a= nd Researcher

Chair IEEE/ISTO Prin= ter Working Group Imaging Device Security

Sharp Labs of Americ= a

5750 NW Pacific Rim = Blvd

Camas, WA 98607=

(360) 817-7542<= /o:p>

jmurdock@sharplabs.com

 


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377ED840wabexchp1sharpa_-- --===============1108421024== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pwg-announce mailing list pwg-announce@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg-announce --===============1108421024==-- From pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Tue Mar 26 11:32:47 2013 Return-Path: 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 7405C21F8B45 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:32:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bcMzLLyQAhCl for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A71E21F884A for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321C6791E8; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:31:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Delivered-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Received: from mail4.sharplabs.com (mail4.sharplabs.com [216.65.151.214]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6433791E1 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:31:29 -0400 (EDT) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1364322653-02080808ff76c60001-asKuw5 Received: from WABCASP2.sharpamericas.com ([172.29.224.252]) by mail4.sharplabs.com with ESMTP id xfjpjFtTArIhr7MN for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:30:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: jmurdock@sharplabs.com Received: from WABEXCHP1.sharpamericas.com ([fe80::f930:84ca:49e6:2cbd]) by WABCASP2.sharpamericas.com ([172.29.224.3]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:30:53 -0700 From: "Murdock, Joe" X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: fe80::f930:84ca:49e6:2cbd To: "pwg-announce@pwg.org" Subject: [Pwg-Announce] Remonder - Extension of PWG Formal Vote: HCD-NAP Thread-Topic: [Pwg-Announce] Remonder - Extension of PWG Formal Vote: HCD-NAP X-ASG-Orig-Subj: [Pwg-Announce] Remonder - Extension of PWG Formal Vote: HCD-NAP Thread-Index: Ac4qUAsQUCjpTBz0SU2Xgh9mcTnkPg== Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:30:52 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.29.229.74] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Barracuda-Connect: UNKNOWN[172.29.224.252] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1364322653 X-Barracuda-URL: http://mail4.enet.sharplabs.com:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi Received-SPF: none (sharplabs.com: jmurdock@sharplabs.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at sharplabs.com X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.14 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.14 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=CN_BODY_332, HTML_MESSAGE, THREAD_INDEX, THREAD_TOPIC X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.126314 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.01 THREAD_INDEX thread-index: AcO7Y8iR61tzADqsRmmc5wNiFHEOig== 0.01 THREAD_TOPIC Thread-Topic: ...(Japanese Subject)... 0.12 CN_BODY_332 BODY: CN_BODY_332 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-BeenThere: pwg-announce@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Printer Working Group Announcement List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1014894986==" Sender: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 321C6791E8.ACF46 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org --===============1014894986== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377ED850wabexchp1sharpa_" --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377ED850wabexchp1sharpa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings: VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL! See voting instructions below. This email announces the extension of the Formal Approval vote by the PWG m= embership on HCD NAP Spec, which is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-ids-napsoh10-20130211.pdf The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-hcd-nap10.txt VOTING PERIOD: This Formal Vote which started on Tuesday 12 February 2013 has been extended and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Monday 01 April= 2013. Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain. Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to exercise their right to vote. PWG Privacy Policy: Your vote is confidential and will not be disclosed by PWG officers or document editors. HOW TO VOTE: Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format: HCD-NAP Formal Vote--- Example: HCD-NAP Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes Rules: (1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vote and MUST contain a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No" vote int= o a "Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counted, per PWG Process/3= .0. (2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG Process/3.= 0. (3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any *technical* comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval. WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE: Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'): msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair) blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG Secretary) jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" com (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair/HCD Health Att= ributes Editor) Alan "dot" Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Alan Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secr= etary) Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote). Notes: (1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0 and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement. The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and the links are provided below. (2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues. The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf --------------------------------------- Joe Murdock Principal Engineer and Researcher Chair IEEE/ISTO Printer Working Group Imaging Device Security Sharp Labs of America 5750 NW Pacific Rim Blvd Camas, WA 98607 (360) 817-7542 jmurdock@sharplabs.com --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377ED850wabexchp1sharpa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings:

VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL!  See voting instructions below.

This email announces the extension of the Formal Approval vote by the PWG m= embership on HCD NAP Spec, which is located at:

   ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-ids-napsoh10-20130211.= pdf

The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at:

  ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-hcd-nap10.txt


VOTING PERIOD:  This Formal Vote which started on Tuesday 12 February = 2013
has been extended and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Monday 01 April= 2013.

Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain.


Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to
exercise their right to vote.

PWG Privacy Policy:  Your vote is confidential and will not be disclos= ed
by PWG officers or document editors.


HOW TO VOTE:

Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format:

 HCD-NAP Formal Vote-<company name>-<voter's last name>-&l= t;Yes/No/Abstain>

Example:

 HCD-NAP Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes


Rules:

(1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vo= te and MUST contain
a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No"= ; vote into a
"Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counte= d, per PWG Process/3.0.

(2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG = Process/3.0.

(3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, pe= r PWG Process/3.0.

(4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any  *technical* comment= s, per PWG
Process/3.0.

(5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval.


WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE:

Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing<= br> "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'):

msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair)

blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG S= ecretary)

 

jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" co= m (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair/HCD Health Attributes Editor)

Alan ”dot” Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Ala= n Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary)


Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote).


Notes:

(1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0
and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement.
The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and
the links are provided below.

(2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of<= br> the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues.

The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is
located at:

 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf

The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at:<= br>
 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf=

 

 

--------------------= -------------------

Joe Murdock

Principal Engineer a= nd Researcher

Chair IEEE/ISTO Prin= ter Working Group Imaging Device Security

Sharp Labs of Americ= a

5750 NW Pacific Rim = Blvd

Camas, WA 98607=

(360) 817-7542<= /o:p>

jmurdock@sharplabs.com

 


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377ED850wabexchp1sharpa_-- --===============1014894986== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pwg-announce mailing list pwg-announce@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg-announce --===============1014894986==-- From pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Tue Mar 26 11:33:19 2013 Return-Path: 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 783CA21F88C4 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:33:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.948 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LcpF4LnCzThG for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:33:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09BAB21F886A for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:33:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00B34791ED; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:32:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Delivered-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Received: from mail4.sharplabs.com (mail4.sharplabs.com [216.65.151.214]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CCB0791E2 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:31:44 -0400 (EDT) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1364322699-02080808ff76cc0001-asKuw5 Received: from WABCASP2.sharpamericas.com ([172.29.224.252]) by mail4.sharplabs.com with ESMTP id SdObeTyAklZFAh3z for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:31:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: jmurdock@sharplabs.com Received: from WABEXCHP1.sharpamericas.com ([fe80::f930:84ca:49e6:2cbd]) by WABCASP2.sharpamericas.com ([172.29.224.3]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:31:39 -0700 From: "Murdock, Joe" X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: fe80::f930:84ca:49e6:2cbd To: "pwg-announce@pwg.org" Subject: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder - Extension of PWG Formal Vote: HCD Health Attributes Thread-Topic: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder - Extension of PWG Formal Vote: HCD Health Attributes X-ASG-Orig-Subj: [Pwg-Announce] Reminder - Extension of PWG Formal Vote: HCD Health Attributes Thread-Index: Ac4qUCWAJpamSgAWSF6UeCQVvvIwww== Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:31:38 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.29.229.74] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Barracuda-Connect: UNKNOWN[172.29.224.252] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1364322699 X-Barracuda-URL: http://mail4.enet.sharplabs.com:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi Received-SPF: none (sharplabs.com: jmurdock@sharplabs.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at sharplabs.com X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.14 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.14 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=CN_BODY_332, HTML_MESSAGE, THREAD_INDEX, THREAD_TOPIC X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.126314 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.01 THREAD_INDEX thread-index: AcO7Y8iR61tzADqsRmmc5wNiFHEOig== 0.01 THREAD_TOPIC Thread-Topic: ...(Japanese Subject)... 0.12 CN_BODY_332 BODY: CN_BODY_332 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-BeenThere: pwg-announce@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Printer Working Group Announcement List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1040797871==" Sender: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 00B34791ED.AD04D X-pwg-MailScanner-From: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org --===============1040797871== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377ED85Dwabexchp1sharpa_" --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377ED85Dwabexchp1sharpa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings: VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL! See voting instructions below. This email announces the extension of the Formal Approval vote by the PWG m= embership on HCD Health Attributes Spec, which is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-idsattributes10-20130211.pdf The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-hcd-attr10.txt VOTING PERIOD: This Formal Vote which started on Tuesday 12 February 2013 has been extended and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Monday 01 April= 2013. Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain. Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to exercise their right to vote. PWG Privacy Policy: Your vote is confidential and will not be disclosed by PWG officers or document editors. HOW TO VOTE: Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format: HCD Health Attributes Formal Vote--- Example: HCD Health Attributes Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes Rules: (1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vote and MUST contain a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No" vote int= o a "Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counted, per PWG Process/3= .0. (2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG Process/3.= 0. (3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any *technical* comments, per PWG Process/3.0. (5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval. WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE: Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'): msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair) blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG Secretary) jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" com (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair/HCD Health Att= ributes Editor) Alan "dot" Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Alan Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secr= etary) Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote). Notes: (1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0 and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement. The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and the links are provided below. (2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues. The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at: http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf __________________________________________________ --------------------------------------- Joe Murdock Principal Engineer and Researcher Chair IEEE/ISTO Printer Working Group Imaging Device Security Sharp Labs of America 5750 NW Pacific Rim Blvd Camas, WA 98607 (360) 817-7542 jmurdock@sharplabs.com --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377ED85Dwabexchp1sharpa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings:

VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL!  See voting instructions below.

This email announces the extension of the Formal Approval vote by the PWG m= embership on HCD Health Attributes Spec, which is located at:

   ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/wd-idsattributes10-201= 30211.pdf

The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at:

   ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/wd/lcrc-hcd-attr10.txt


VOTING PERIOD:  This Formal Vote which started on Tuesday 12 February = 2013
has been extended and will end at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Monday 01 April= 2013.

Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain.


Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to
exercise their right to vote.

PWG Privacy Policy:  Your vote is confidential and will not be disclos= ed
by PWG officers or document editors.


HOW TO VOTE:

Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format:

 HCD Health Attributes Formal Vote-<company name>-<voter's la= st name>-<Yes/No/Abstain>

Example:

 HCD Health Attributes Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes


Rules:

(1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vo= te and MUST contain
a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No"= ; vote into a
"Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counte= d, per PWG Process/3.0.

(2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG = Process/3.0.

(3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, pe= r PWG Process/3.0.

(4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any  *technical* comment= s, per PWG
Process/3.0.

(5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval.


WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE:

Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing<= br> "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'):

msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair)

blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG S= ecretary)

 

jmurdock "at" sharplabs "dot" co= m (Joe Murdock, IDS WG Chair/HCD Health Attributes Editor)

Alan ”dot” Sukert "at" Xerox "dot" com (Ala= n Sukert, IDS WG Vice-Chair/Secretary)


Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the IDS WG list = (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote).


Notes:

(1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/= 3.0
and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agr= eement.
The 2012 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and
the links are provided below.

(2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of<= br> the 2012 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues.

The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is
located at:

 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf

The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at:<= br>
 http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf=

__________________________________________________

 

 

--------------------= -------------------

Joe Murdock

Principal Engineer a= nd Researcher

Chair IEEE/ISTO Prin= ter Working Group Imaging Device Security

Sharp Labs of Americ= a

5750 NW Pacific Rim = Blvd

Camas, WA 98607=

(360) 817-7542<= /o:p>

jmurdock@sharplabs.com

 


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --_000_E301B2F12DBCCF4394DEA69FD0E70370377ED85Dwabexchp1sharpa_-- --===============1040797871== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pwg-announce mailing list pwg-announce@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg-announce --===============1040797871==-- From pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Tue Mar 26 11:58:04 2013 Return-Path: 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 F25DA21F854E for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:58:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lZf6KpRp7e70 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE2521F851E for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86733791A3; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:57:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Delivered-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Received: from mail-out.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.151.62.50]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A6179194 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:57:23 -0400 (EDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from relay2.apple.com ([17.128.113.67]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MKA00BVW78CK8K1@mail-out.apple.com> for pwg-announce@pwg.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:56:25 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807143-b7f896d000006d55-44-5151ef579d0d Received: from [17.153.101.88] (Unknown_Domain [17.153.101.88]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay2.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id D8.C7.27989.85FE1515; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:56:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Sweet In-reply-to: <26444E3E-F6C6-4E5E-9035-046F07BDB9E1@apple.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:56:26 -0400 Message-id: References: <26444E3E-F6C6-4E5E-9035-046F07BDB9E1@apple.com> To: "PWG Announcements Inc." X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiODM1QjfifWCgwd4H5hZHvsVarGtdzezA 5LH15A82j3mLpzMFMEVx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZTQuOc1UsFe6onHJbdYGxqliXYwcHBICJhJT JkR1MXICmWISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEuhlkjj0sY0ZJMEsoCVx499LJhCbV0BP4tq3r+wgtrCAg8TC 7//A4mwCahK/J/WxgticArYS1941sYHYLAKqEj962qHmaEssW/iaGWKOjcS13oMsILYQkH35 6l2wehEBY4kd7XvZIA6SlXj9/A3LBEa+WUjOmIXkjFlIxi5gZF7FKFCUmpNYaaSXWFCQk6qX nJ+7iREUWA2FzjsYjy2zOsQowMGoxMO7ITggUIg1say4MvcQowQHs5IIr+DGwEAh3pTEyqrU ovz4otKc1OJDjNIcLErivHfbgKoF0hNLUrNTUwtSi2CyTBycUg2MQQpCLSuySyW6+ho0GCss 72zzEr+mVut38vmUR//8Fhm9vexzg/XdPCfG6beudu1Rqbl3/KSaeI9F6l0JzeOvliZfj/4k 7b7AWz7deWvG+hu93HZXO4+eqbpyt6m4KeKU2roNvc63q86szD00ueBI3y0Xnnu8RwQX3Y3b vCTUYln+iX+pYj3TlViKMxINtZiLihMBXiHuwigCAAA= X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Subject: [Pwg-Announce] REMINDER: PWG Formal Vote: Media Standardized Names 2.0 X-BeenThere: pwg-announce@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Printer Working Group Announcement List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 86733791A3.AC6E4 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org All, Just a friendly reminder to get out and vote prior to Thursday evening. On 2013-02-28, at 8:48 PM, Michael Sweet wrote: > Greetings: > > VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL! See voting instructions below. > > This email initiates the Formal Approval vote by the PWG membership on PWG Media Standardized Names 2.0 (MSN2), which is located at: > > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-pwgmsn20-20130228.pdf > > The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at: > > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/lcrc-pwgmsn20.txt > > > VOTING PERIOD: This Formal Vote starts today, Thursday 28 February 2013 > and ends at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Thursday 28 March 2013. > > Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain. > > > Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to > exercise their right to vote. > > PWG Privacy Policy: Your vote is confidential and will not be disclosed > by PWG officers or document editors. > > > HOW TO VOTE: > > Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format: > > PWG MSN2 Formal Vote--- > > Example: > > PWG MSN2 Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes > > > Rules: > > (1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vote and MUST contain > a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No" vote into a > "Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counted, per PWG Process/3.0. > > (2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG Process/3.0. > > (3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, per PWG Process/3.0. > > (4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any *technical* comments, per PWG > Process/3.0. > > (5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval. > > > WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE: > > Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (replacing > "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'): > > msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair, PWG MSN2 Editor) > > blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG Secretary, IPP WG Co-Chair) > > ptykodi "at" tykodi "dot" com (Paul Tykodi, IPP WG Co-Chair) > > > Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the > IPP WG list (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote). > > > Notes: > > (1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Process/3.0 > and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality agreement. > The 2013 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and > the links are provided below. > > (2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy of > the 2013 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues. > > The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is > located at: > > http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf > > The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located at: > > http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf > > _________________________________________________________ > Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair > _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ pwg-announce mailing list pwg-announce@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg-announce From ipp-bounces@pwg.org Thu Mar 28 06:44:44 2013 Return-Path: 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 060F421F8E6E for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:44:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HJcnM48juoKK for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:44:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 316C421F8E63 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:44:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 350E4791FE; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:44:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org Received: from mail-out.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.151.62.49]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FBBB791FD for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:44:05 -0400 (EDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Received: from relay3.apple.com ([17.128.113.83]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MKD0071XI5DGQD0@mail-out.apple.com> for ipp@pwg.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:44:05 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807153-b7f8a6d0000064e7-0e-51544923be72 Received: from [17.153.40.233] (Unknown_Domain [17.153.40.233]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay3.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 84.AC.25831.42944515; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:44:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Sweet Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:44:10 -0400 To: "ipp@pwg.org" Message-id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiOFPjpa6qZ0igweXZ/BbH9r1ksTjyLdaB yWPryR9sHvMWT2cKYIrisklJzcksSy3St0vgyni0+Q9TwRuRipNbv7E2MLYJdzFyckgImEjs 3HuKEcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5BAL5NEx4KrLCAJNgE1id+T+lhBbGaBBImVe06B2SwCqhIXHjYz gdjCAq4SFyf1g9WLCMhLrG2bChbnFbCR+LVkJiOErSdx7dtXdohlshKvn79hmcDIPQvJ2FlI yiDi2hLLFr5mnsXIAWTrSExeyAgRlpfY/nYOM0zJx/NHmBYwsq1iFChKzUmsNNZLLCjISdVL zs/dxAgKrIbC4B2Mf5ZZHWIU4GBU4uGtEAgOFGJNLCuuzD3EKMHBrCTCO1kmJFCINyWxsiq1 KD++qDQntfgQozQHi5I47722gEAhgfTEktTs1NSC1CKYLBMHp1QDo03pW/Mfub+jyrnWPb2+ brf5XP+6FXuKzm9l8/R8Zh255Pd+sbmyF8TNmba/dta7JOX1KVXXVKzG96hNz+rL11LMmKva C1/57b/lV1504tJcX26hlEVGnoIPLv4xOMLIET3d/8OPZ0ceHPCfdE5UovDLi79tvAKBV7WM nWt75P/NDnpWlnRGXYmlOCPRUIu5qDgRANbZnNAoAgAA X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Subject: [IPP] Initial Draft: IPP Shared Infrastructure Extensions (IPPSIX) X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Internet Printing Protocol \(current\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1661477686==" Sender: ipp-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 350E4791FE.A90E1 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: ipp-bounces@pwg.org --===============1661477686== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_UTZTiKhf9v+pgyWnnQQ9LQ)" --Boundary_(ID_UTZTiKhf9v+pgyWnnQQ9LQ) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT All, I have just posted an initial draft of the IPP Shared Infrastructure Extensions (IPPSIX) specification for review and comment. This is the IPP binding of the Cloud Print Requirements and Model currently under development. ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippsix10-20130328.docx ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippsix10-20130328.pdf _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --Boundary_(ID_UTZTiKhf9v+pgyWnnQQ9LQ) Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT All,

I have just posted an initial draft of the IPP Shared Infrastructure Extensions (IPPSIX) specification for review and comment.  This is the IPP binding of the Cloud Print Requirements and Model currently under development.


_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --Boundary_(ID_UTZTiKhf9v+pgyWnnQQ9LQ)-- --===============1661477686== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list ipp@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp --===============1661477686==-- From pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Thu Mar 28 06:54:41 2013 Return-Path: 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 A201121F8E90 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:54:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i627NzUry3Fs for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 205F821F8E8F for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 400C479202; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:54:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Delivered-To: pwg-announce@pwg.org Received: from mail-ia0-f171.google.com (mail-ia0-f171.google.com [209.85.210.171]) by pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 649B679201 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:54:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ia0-f171.google.com with SMTP id z13so8321177iaz.2 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:54:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=dJ/XWJ01UFLksBAD65sW91gxmcrlLmDZoeDg87GgGuw=; b=HmyNMaHc0/A1OqynvyUIBU0wwwg8ZZBC2Zj29qRJn3U6t/+G1QGqSFahgk0M0izcd3 M/f+hJZUYXDpXV5KiNMS2Eyq9JNbHb9x0Vfp5PafR5I6Orm8qD2VHDqJNSC+Pzivme4P kc4TKNxXEVpLv1Mz0DYNu2AYiAKpo5HgkdxRd/ti1jIBqO7GBica2pktf0x/EheeTaRH qCqtuaQE/kIkmvHx1D44+Va7kiNMb5zCl8PXdWMkxZDz26fmKL4tQowNnJmlIHU/jUp2 30MoipY7Hrk8g3O8aLC+ipEoCm6YFUV/vROpg0OPvaTG1RcWF0FpRz7Wdc7YqCgQbt8i ik6A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.136.67 with SMTP id s3mr14403070ict.31.1364478843856; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.159.232 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:54:03 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ira McDonald To: Michael Sweet , Ira McDonald X-pwg-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Cc: "PWG Announcements Inc." Subject: [Pwg-Announce] Need ONE more vote - PWG Formal Vote: Media Standardized Names 2.0 X-BeenThere: pwg-announce@pwg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Printer Working Group Announcement List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1084010625==" Sender: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org Errors-To: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org X-pwg-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-pwg-MailScanner-ID: 400C479202.AE156 X-pwg-MailScanner-From: pwg-announce-bounces@pwg.org --===============1084010625== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8b9ccab54604d8fc7c3b --90e6ba6e8b9ccab54604d8fc7c3b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, The MSN2 formal vote is now ONE vote short of a quorum. Please cast your vote today. Cheers, - Ira (PWG secretary) On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Michael Sweet wrote: > All, > > Just a friendly reminder to get out and vote prior to Thursday evening. > > > On 2013-02-28, at 8:48 PM, Michael Sweet wrote: > > > Greetings: > > > > VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL! See voting instructions below. > > > > This email initiates the Formal Approval vote by the PWG membership on > PWG Media Standardized Names 2.0 (MSN2), which is located at: > > > > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-pwgmsn20-20130228.pdf > > > > The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located at: > > > > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/lcrc-pwgmsn20.txt > > > > > > VOTING PERIOD: This Formal Vote starts today, Thursday 28 February 2013 > > and ends at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Thursday 28 March 2013. > > > > Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain. > > > > > > Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to > > exercise their right to vote. > > > > PWG Privacy Policy: Your vote is confidential and will not be disclosed > > by PWG officers or document editors. > > > > > > HOW TO VOTE: > > > > Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format: > > > > PWG MSN2 Formal Vote--- > > > > Example: > > > > PWG MSN2 Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes > > > > > > Rules: > > > > (1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No" vote and MUST > contain > > a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No" vote > into a > > "Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be counted, per PWG > Process/3.0. > > > > (2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per PWG > Process/3.0. > > > > (3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comments, per PWG Process/3.0. > > > > (4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any *technical* comments, per PWG > > Process/3.0. > > > > (5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approval. > > > > > > WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE: > > > > Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses > (replacing > > "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'): > > > > msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair, PWG MSN2 Editor) > > > > blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, PWG Secretary, IPP WG > Co-Chair) > > > > ptykodi "at" tykodi "dot" com (Paul Tykodi, IPP WG Co-Chair) > > > > > > Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the > > IPP WG list (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote). > > > > > > Notes: > > > > (1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG > Process/3.0 > > and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality > agreement. > > The 2013 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents and > > the links are provided below. > > > > (2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed copy > of > > the 2013 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues. > > > > The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is > > located at: > > > > http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf > > > > The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located > at: > > > > http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.pdf > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > _______________________________________________ > pwg-announce mailing list > pwg-announce@pwg.org > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg-announce > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --90e6ba6e8b9ccab54604d8fc7c3b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

The MSN2 formal vote is now ONE vote short of a quorum.

P= lease cast your vote today.

Cheers,
- Ira (PWG secretary)
=


On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Michael= Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:
All,

Just a friendly reminder to get out and vote prior to Thursday evening.


On 2013-02-28, at 8:48 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:

> Greetings:
>
> VOTES ARE CONFIDENTIAL! =A0See voting instructions below.
>
> This email initiates the Formal Approval vote by the PWG membership on= PWG Media Standardized Names 2.0 (MSN2), which is located at:
>
> =A0 ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-pwgmsn20-20130228= .pdf
>
> The complete list of PWG Last Call issues and resolutions is located a= t:
>
> =A0 ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/lcrc-pwgmsn20.txt
>
>
> VOTING PERIOD: =A0This Formal Vote starts today, Thursday 28 February = 2013
> and ends at 10pm (US Pacific Time) on Thursday 28 March 2013.
>
> Valid votes are: Yes, No, No (with Strong Objection), Abstain.
>
>
> Representatives from PWG member companies are strongly encouraged to > exercise their right to vote.
>
> PWG Privacy Policy: =A0Your vote is confidential and will not be discl= osed
> by PWG officers or document editors.
>
>
> HOW TO VOTE:
>
> Send an email with *exactly* the following subject line format:
>
> PWG MSN2 Formal Vote-<company name>-<voter's last name>= ;-<Yes/No/Abstain>
>
> Example:
>
> PWG MSN2 Formal Vote-Acme-McGee-Yes
>
>
> Rules:
>
> (1) Any "No" vote MUST state the reason for the "No&quo= t; vote and MUST contain
> a description of the *technical* changes required to turn the "No= " vote into a
> "Yes" vote - otherwise the "No" vote will NOT be c= ounted, per PWG Process/3.0.
>
> (2) Any "No" vote MUST NOT contain *editorial* comments, per= PWG Process/3.0.
>
> (3) Any "Yes" vote MAY contain "editorial" comment= s, per PWG Process/3.0.
>
> (4) Any "Yes" vote MUST NOT contain any =A0*technical* comme= nts, per PWG
> Process/3.0.
>
> (5) Any "Abstain" vote counts toward quorum, but not approva= l.
>
>
> WHERE TO SEND YOUR VOTE:
>
> Please send your vote to *all* of the following email addresses (repla= cing
> "dot" with '.' and "at" with '@'):=
>
> msweet "at" apple "dot" com (Mike Sweet, PWG Chair= , PWG MSN2 Editor)
>
> blueroofmusic "at" gmail "dot" com (Ira McDonald, = PWG Secretary, IPP WG Co-Chair)
>
> ptykodi "at" tykodi "dot" com (Paul Tykodi, IPP WG= Co-Chair)
>
>
> Please do NOT simply reply to this note on PWG-Announce or the
> IPP WG list (to preserve the confidentiality of your vote).
>
>
> Notes:
>
> (1) This Formal Vote is being conducted under the rules of the PWG Pro= cess/3.0
> and the current PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentialit= y agreement.
> The 2013 PWG Membership Agreement calls out both of these documents an= d
> the links are provided below.
>
> (2) To be eligible to vote the member MUST have submitted a signed cop= y of
> the 2013 PWG Membership Agreement and paid their dues.
>
> The PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process Version 3.0 is=
> located at:
>
> http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.p= df
>
> The PWG Policy on Intellectual Property and Confidentiality is located= at:
>
> http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-ip-policy.p= df
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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


--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean. --90e6ba6e8b9ccab54604d8fc7c3b-- --===============1084010625== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pwg-announce mailing list pwg-announce@pwg.org https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg-announce --===============1084010625==--