Conflict between RFC 8010 and RFC 8011 for unsupported / out-of-band encodings?

RFC 8010 section 3.8: “For “out-of-band” values for the value-tag field defined in this document, such as ‘unsupported’, the “value-length” MUST be 0 and the “value” empty…”

RFC 8011 section 4.1.7: “In the case of an unsupported attribute name, the Printer returns the Client-supplied attribute with a substituted value of ‘unsupported’. “

So for example, if the attribute ‘job-account-id’ is not supported then should the encoding in unsupported attribute list be:

Per RFC 8010:
value-tag = 0x10 (unsupported)
name-length = length(‘job-account-id’) = 14
name = ‘job-account-id’
value-length = 0

OR should it be:

Per RFC 8011
value-tag = 0x10 (unsupported)
name-length = length(‘job-account-id’) = 14
name = ‘job-account-id’
value-length = length(‘unsupported’) = 11
value = ‘unsupported’

Or are both legal encodings?


Thanks,
Chris

Christopher Rizzo
Engineer II, Software Engineering
Design & Development Engineering

[signature_385720276]<http://www.xerox.com/>

Xerox Corporation
Virtual Office Employee
26600 SW Parkway Ave
Wilsonville, OR 97070

[signature_2810891220]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/xerox/>   [signature_3699605372] <https://www.youtube.com/user/XeroxCorp>    [signature_3680685820] <https://twitter.com/Xerox>    [signature_2930859694] <https://www.instagram.com/xerox/>    [signature_1905062644] <https://www.facebook.com/XeroxCorp>

_______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp