Was the PWG Bake-Off a Success or Failure?

Was the PWG Bake-Off a Success or Failure?

Was the PWG Bake-Off a Success or Failure?

Farrell, Lee Lee_Farrell at cissc.canon.com
Mon Aug 5 21:19:34 EDT 1996


Whether or not the Bake-off was deemed a success or failure is much less
interesting (at least to me) than whether or not the several vendor
implementations are truly interoperable.  That's the big question that
I'd like to get a consistent (or at least authoritative) answer on.  At
one point, the bake-off rehearsal was intended to be a preparation for
demoing at Interop.  Based on the results of the last meeting, can
anyone say that the PWG is now able to demonstrate successful
*interoperability*?  (Whether it's done at Interop or some other venue.)
 Isn't that the priority focus?


Unfortunately, I missed getting a copy of the summary sheet that Genoa
apparently passed out at the last meeting.  But I did hear the
representative say that he would be issuing a report on the detailed
findings of his test.  Like Jay, I am very anxious to receive this
report.  I'm also curious if such a report would agree with some of
Jay's observations or not.  What do the other vendors think?  Although
Jay might not have been present to hear them, the few statements that I
heard from Genoa gave me the impression that there was a big variance on
the interpretation and method of reporting three specific HR MIB
objects.  Perhaps these items are not very critical, but IMHO, this
doesn't yet sound like a successful interoperability event worthy of
demonstrating to the world.


Lee Farrell
CIS


>----------
>From: 	Binnur Al-Kazily[SMTP:binnur at hpb15650.boi.hp.com]
>Sent: 	Monday, August 5, 1996 11:19 AM
>To: 	'pwg at pwg.org'
>Subject: 	Re: Was the PWG Bake-Off a Success or Failure?
>
>
>I have a different view of the bake-off that took place in Portland
>during the July PWG meeting. I had few objectives for the bake-off:
>
>1.  dry-run for the possible Interop '96 bake-off.
>2.  interoperability testing of the Printer MIB implementations that
>shows up.
>
>In order to achieve the objective #1, it was necessary to have a
>free-running show, kinda duplicating a Interop. However, in order to
>organize the environment somewhat, it was also necessary for each
>vendor to summarize what they brought with them, and what they were
>planning on showing.. I think we were definitely able to duplicate the
>same hectic environment as a show would have. But, where we have failed
>was gathering information from each vendor regarding to their sw and hw
>implementations. Most of us were busy trying to get the printers up and
>running, and others were sitting in groups having conversations.. I
>think it is hard to organize this type of activity as a dry-run for a
>show.. However, identifying our objectives in advance would help to
>organize the nature of the bake-off..
>
>Unlike Jay, I feel we have achieved the #2 objective during the
>bake-off.. This is more a question of, is the glass half full or half
>empty.. This was the first time all the vendors got together and
>checked their interoperability implementations.. It is great to see the
>reports coming back, and also to know that we could most likely fix
>these problems for the future just by clarifying few areas in the MIB
>(ok.. they are the most important areas, but still.. It is easy to do,
>now that we know what is wrong..) However, doing a more formal
>interoperability testing in the future would be more beneficial, as
>well..
>
>Overall, was the bake-off a success?? In my mind, anything that I learn
>from is a success, even if I fail at it!! What do you think, is the
>glass half-full, or half-empty?? Important thing for us is to learn
>from it, and document it, so we don't make the same mistake twice..
>
> ---
>Binnur Al-Kazily Hewlett-Packard Company Internet Solutions Operation
>binnur at boi.hp.com    (208)396-6372             KB7WYD    DoD #2010
>



More information about the Pwg mailing list