On 2013-07-03, at 3:26 PM, Paul Tykodi <ptykodi at tykodi.com> wrote:
> The "Printer Working Group" industry consortium is not an IETF working group, and the IETF does not recognize the Printer Working Group as a standards-setting body. This document is being published solely to provide
> information to the Internet community regarding a MIB that might be deployed in the marketplace. Publication of this document as an RFC is not an endorsement of this MIB.”
Yeah, old politics from before the PWG became part of the IEEE-ISTO...
> I think that Pete makes a good observation in his point #1 that as an IEEE-ISTO standards body, the PWG does need to consider carefully the potential deprecation of an existing PWG standard in favor of handling the same task in a totally new way rather than a deprecation due to the publishing of a new updated version of a specification that obsoletes the previous version.
But we also should not keep standards around longer than they are useful. We have obsoleted standards before, and if we are successful in doing SM 2.0 we will be obsoleting a LOT of specs in the SM/MFD space. Standards change.
What we shouldn't do is make any assumptions about the validity of our positions - right now I think we have consensus that we need to define a hardcopy document object and its supporting elements and semantics. Once that is done we can update the Scan, FaxOut, EmailOut, Print, and Copy models to use it, and *then* make a decision about whether Copy is its own service or a function of Print.
(the other aspect is work for IDS: how to define and query policies for MFDs tailored to MFD functions, and does Copy need to be separate for proper AAA?)
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...