Last Call Review of draft-sweet-rfc2911bis-09
review-sweet-rfc2911bis-09-genart-lc-housley-2016-07-26-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-sweet-rfc2911bis-09
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2016-07-14
IETF LC End Date: 2016-07-29
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Almost Ready

The document is long, but it is well written.  I could not find the
time to read it in one sitting, so I hope I retained enough state from
one sitting to the next.  Apologies in advance if I lost too much state
between sittings.

I did not review the appendices.


Major Concerns:

It seems that [PWG5100.12] specifies IPP Version 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2.  Why
is this document specifying IPP Version 1.1?  I think the introduction
ought to contain an explanation of this situation.  Further, I expect
this will have some impact on the discussion of the REQUIRED
ipp-versions-supported attribute.

The two IANA references are broken.  They should point to iana.org.
The [IANA-CS] and [IANA-MT] should point to these URLs:
<

http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets/character-sets.xhtml

>
and <

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml

>.


Minor Concerns:

Throughout the document, "Printer object" and "IPP object" and "Printer"
are used.  I think they mean the same thing.  If they are different,
please include a discussion in the Introduction.  If they are the same,
I think that using one throughout would be helpful.

How does the concepts of an impression (in Section 2.3.4) and a media
sheet (in Section 2.3.8) apply to a 3D printer?  Also, many of the
description and status attributes described in Section 5.4 do not seem
relevant to a 3D printer.

In Section 3.1, it says: "The following figures show ...".  However, it
is talking about Figure 2, which shows several configurations.  Either
label each configuration as a separate figure, or reword this text to
match the existing Figure 2.

In Section 4.1.3, it says: "Sections 4.1.7, 4.2.1.2, and C give ...".  I
found this confusing.  I think that Section C is really a reference to
Appendix C.

In section 4.1.7, it says:

   This value's syntax type is "out-of-band" and its encoding is defined
   by special rules for "out-of-band" values in the "Encoding and
   Transport" document [RFC2910bis].  Its value indicates no support for
   the attribute itself - see the beginning of Section 5.1.

Please clarify whether the referenced section is in [RFC2910bis] or this
document.

In Sections 4.1.9, 4.2.1.2, and 4.2.2. there are references to [RFC3196]
and [PWG5100.19], saying that these documents "present suggested steps".
Please reword this sentence to indicate whether these steps
MUST/SHOULD/MAY be followed.

In Section 5.2.11, there are references to [PWG5100.3] and [PWG5100.13].
Please reword this sentence to indicate whether these steps
MUST/SHOULD/MAY be followed.


Nits:

The URL for [1] and [3] are the same.  Get rid of [3].

In Section 1.1: s/The model described in this model document /
                 /The model described in this document /

In Section 1.1: s/some sort of filtered and context based searching /
                 /some sort of filtered context-based searching /

In Sections 4.1.6.4 and 5.3.11, there is an example URL.  It would be
better to use "example.com" or "example.net" in the URL.  Consider:

   (404) 

http://ftp.example.com/pub/ipp-model-v11-990510.pdf



In Section 5.3.7, the reference to "Figure 1" should be "Figure 3", and
the legend on the figure on that same page should be corrected.  The
figure is currently labelled with two numbers.