Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-ipp-not-spec - Internet Printing Protocol (IPP): Event Notifications and Subscriptions to Proposed Standard

[Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>]

Russ Housley        [   ]     [   ]       [ X ]      [   ]

Comments:

1. Numbering in section 5.2 is confusing (at least to me).  Shouldn't 
paragraph 4 contain subparagraphs with letters a) and b)?


2. Section 5.3.1 says:

   The Printer MUST treat the address part of this attribute as opaque.

This seems like a very bad idea.  The security considerations acknowledge 
that IPP notifications can be a source of SPAM.  If the Printer is not 
allowed to look at the address portion of a URL, how can a vendor implement 
responsible filters?


3. Section 5.3.3.5.3 says:

   This section contains rule for special cases.

I cannot figure out what this means, but I think it can simply be deleted.


4.  Section 19 (a.k.a. Appendix D) is using words that are already defined 
in RFC 2119.  Why?