Hi Ron,
I vote for option 3 (integrate Finisher MIB text as a subunit
into the revised Printer MIB text and submit to the IESG as
ONE DOCUMENT).
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
906-494-2434
----------------------------------
[Ron's note follows...]
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:44:22 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
From: Ron Bergman <rbergma at dpc.com>
To: fin at pwg.org, pmp at pwg.org
Cc: Lloyd Young <lpyoung at lexmark.com>, Chris Wellens <chrisw at iwl.com>
Subject: FIN> Finisher MIB, Where do we go from here?
Message-Id: <Pine.WNT.3.96.981029160859.121E-100000 at rbergm.dpc.com>
X-X-Sender: rbergma at newmai.dpc.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: fin-owner at pwg.org
Status: R
I am going to submit the latest finisher MIB to Internet-Drafts tomorrow.
This is the version posted last week with the changes to fix the
compilation problems reported by Ira, with the addition of the change to
finSupplyCurrentLevel requested by Paul Henerlau.
Now, where do we go from here? Since the Finisher MIB is an extension of
the Printer MIB and the current draft is dependent upon the updated
Printer MIB, our options for the current draft are somewhat limited. I
can think of four possibilities;
1. Wait until the Printer MIB is assigned an RFC number and then submit
the Finisher MIB.
2. Submit both the Printer MIB and the Finisher MIB to the IESG as a
set.
3. Integrate the Finisher MIB into the Printer MIB and submit the
combined MIB to the IESG.
4. The only other alternative is to remove the dependencies upon the
Printer MIB Textual Conventions, and submit immediately.
I don't believe that number 4 is in our long term best interests. 2 and 3
are the only reasonable alternatives.
Comments?
Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.
----------------------------------