Jay said...
I wonder if the relative silence from the other interop participants
indicates agreement to your position (ie, take Traps out of the spec
entirely), or could it be that none of the participants believes we really
have a problem.
It would be nice to hear from more of the other participants! Considering
the gravity of this issue, the PWG (and the IETF) should hear from
more folks than just Chris, Harry and myself.
<<Reply>>
Kyocera's printer at the Interop testing did not support traps, so we
did not focus much thought on the trap tests. My recollection and
general impression from the Interop testing is that traps were just
not given much attention. We had much to do just to figure out the
test suites and clarify and/or clearup bugs in the test suites and
printer implementations. I think the trap testing was just glossed
over. It is misleading to say it was a total failure. If there was a
failure, it was that traps did not get sufficient priority in the
tests (but then we would probably be complaining about some other area
that got missed).
I don't see how the trap tests could have been "automatic", and since
there was virtually no discussion at the Interop on how to perform the
trap tests, I disagree that failing the trap portion of the test
suites indicated non-interoperability (although it certainly doesn't
indicate interoperability).
I am not in favor of removing traps from the Mib. Why not have two
vendors re-run the IWL trap test suites (with explicit instructions
from IWL). I think this would easily show interoperability.
Stuart Rowley
Kyocera Electronics