Hi all: I have performed an Operations Directorate review of draft-sweet-rfc2911bis-10 (note: the review request specified version -09) Abstract: "The Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) is an application level protocol for distributed printing using Internet tools and technologies. This document describes a simplified model consisting of abstract objects, attributes, and operations that is independent of encoding and transport. The model consists of several objects including Printers and Jobs. Jobs optionally support multiple Documents. IPP semantics allow End Users and Operators to query Printer capabilities, submit print Jobs, inquire about the status of print Jobs and Printers, and cancel, hold, and release print Jobs. IPP semantics also allow Operators to pause and resume Jobs and Printers. Security, internationalization, and directory issues are also addressed by the model and semantics. The IPP message encoding and transport are described in IPP/1.1: Encoding and Transport [RFC2910bis]." This draft is a complete description of IPP, in sufficient detail that implementors can create interworking implementations using it. It's a long - 218 pages - draft, but it's very clearly written; I didn't have any difficulty in following it all the way through. Since IPP is an application-level protocol, ISPs are unlikely to have operational concerns about it. However, network administrators, indeed anyone who manages printers and printing, will need to be sure that their printing systems conform to the same (preferably the latest) version of IPP. It's Intended status is Standards Track, and it Obsoletes: 2911,3381,3382 (if approved); that seems fine. It's IANA Considerations are limited to "for defining standards track and vendor extensions to this document"; it doesn't give IANA any instructions on creating its various IPP Registries. However, those Registries were created by RFC 2911, which this draft obsoletes. Interestingly, it also obsoletes RFCs 3881 and 3882 - but IANA's IPP Registries don't have any references to 3881 or 3882, which seems odd. Should its IANA Considerations sections request IANA to update these registries? The Security Considerations are clear, they discuss scenarios for various deployments of IPP clients (Job creators and Printers). Last, a minor quibble: Job Size units, e.g. on pp 53, 134-136, 156: The units used for these are "K octets". Now, k is the SI abbreviation for kilo; "kilo-octets" would be a better way to say this. Cheers, Nevil -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand