RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 5 records.

Status: Verified (4)

RFC 2911, "Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model and Semantics", September 2000

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8011

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 3380, RFC 3382, RFC 3996, RFC 3995, RFC 7472

Source of RFC: ipp (app)

Errata ID: 364
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Tom Hastings
Date Reported: 2002-07-17

Section 13 says: 

"redirection" - 0x0200 to 0x02FF

It should say:

"redirection" - 0x0300 to 0x03FF

Errata ID: 694
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Tom Hastings
Date Reported: 2002-07-17

Section 13, Appendix B says: 

The top half (128 values) of each range (0x0n40 to 0x0nFF, for 
n = 0 to 5) is reserved for vendor use within each status code
class.

It should say:

The top half (128 values) of each range (0x0n80 to 0x0nFF, for 
n = 0 to 5) is reserved for vendor use within each status code
class.

Notes:




Errata ID: 3365
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Michael Sweet
Date Reported: 2012-09-25
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2012-10-01

Section 4.1.2.2 says: 

4.1.2.2 'nameWithLanguage'

   The 'nameWithLanguage' attribute syntax is a compound attribute
   syntax consisting of two parts: a 'nameWithoutLanguage' part encoded
   in a maximum of 1023 (MAX) octets plus an additional

It should say:

4.1.2.2 'nameWithLanguage'

   The 'nameWithLanguage' attribute syntax is a compound attribute
   syntax consisting of two parts: a 'nameWithoutLanguage' part (see
   Section 4.1.2.1) plus an additional

Notes:

The maximum length of the nameWithoutLanguage value (section 4.1.2.1) is 255 octets, not 1023. Better to just do it by reference, rather than by repeating the information.

Errata ID: 4173
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Michael Sweet
Date Reported: 2014-11-12
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2014-11-12

Section 4.4.15 says: 

    0x4000-0x8FFF       reserved for vendor extensions (see section 6.4)

It should say:

    0x4000-0x7FFF       reserved for vendor extensions (see section 6.4)

Notes:

operation code is a 16-bit signed integer; max is therefore 0x7FFF...

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 2911, "Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model and Semantics", September 2000

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8011

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 3380, RFC 3382, RFC 3996, RFC 3995, RFC 7472

Source of RFC: ipp (app)

Errata ID: 3072
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Michael Sweet
Date Reported: 2012-01-04
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba

Section 4.2.4 says: 

This attribute is relevant only if a job consists of two or more
documents. This attribute MUST be supported with at least one value

It should say:

This attribute is relevant to jobs consisting of one or more
documents. This attribute MUST be supported with at least one value

Notes:

Per consensus of the IPP working group in the Printer Working Group, the "multiple-document-handling" attribute *is* applicable to single-document jobs since it is the only common attribute that can be used to request copy collation.

The other collation attribute ("sheet-collate" from RFC3381])interacts with "multiple-document-handling" in some non-obvious ways and requires clients and printers to support two different attributes for simple collation. The "sheet-collate" attribute also does not address how finishing options are applied to copies while "multiple-document-handling" does.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search