RFC Errata
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.