I agree that we shouldn't keep standards around longer than they are useful
but at the same time I think we need to be mindful of the responsibility of
being a standards organization as well. Where the Copy Service (5108.04) was
only published two years ago, it means that MFD devices that might want to
claim compliance with the specification will likely be very new devices that
have recently entered the market. I don't think that deprecating the
specification by publishing the SM 2.0 specification (all the good aspects
of version 1.0 with potentially some corrections and/or enhanced
functionality to reach version 2.0) is going to upset any vendors who have
expended resources to implement compliance with the Copy Service 1.0
On the other hand, should we ultimately decide to remove the Copy Service
from the model as part of publishing SM 2.0, I would imagine that vendors
who have expended effort to become compliant with a PWG specification (Copy
Service 1.0) that in a short time lost its relevance might wonder whether
the effort they expended to conform with a PWG specification that
disappeared so quickly was warranted. By extension, this could quickly
become an investigation into whether conforming to any PWG standards was
For this reason, I think that it was useful for Pete to bring this element
into the discussion for further consideration as we continue with the SM 2.0
TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC
E-mail: ptykodi at tykodi.com
WWW: <http://www.tykodi.com/> http://www.tykodi.com
From: Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 4:13 PM
To: ptykodi at tykodi.com
Cc: mfd at pwg.org; 'Manchala, Daniel'; 'Zehler, Peter'
Subject: Re: [MFD] Meeting Minutes: IEEE/ISTO - PWG/Semantic Model Working
Group, 1 July 2013
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
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
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...