JK Martin wrote:
>> I must say (in advance) that I am not "pouncing" on you with my
> comments below. ;-)
>> > Overall I found the pre-bakeoff useful. It was good to see that all
> > these printers could be managed using the printer-MIB. I believe that
> > this MIB could be used by an Independent Software Developer to
> > implement a package or packages that could handle all these printers.
>> As I recanted in an earlier statement today, perhaps my use of the word
> "failure" was a bit too harsh. I just wish it would have been more
> successful...and, quite honestly, I expected it to be more successful.
>> However, your above summary of the event is precisely what I had claimed
> did NOT happen at the bake-off, namely:
>> > It was good to see that all these printers could be managed using
> > the printer MIB.
>> Did I miss something at the bake-off? (Was I out of the room AGAIN? ;-)
I think the operative word here is COULD. I did not see the gold
bullet at the cook-off.
> What applications did you see where the printers could all be managed
> in the same fashion? (I know my company's SENSE-based product did
> portray such a "happy" situation.)
>> You also state:
>> > I believe that this MIB could be used by an Independent Software
> > Developer to implement a package or packages that could handle all
> > these printers.
>> I will fully acknowledge that based on the very limited amount of
> testing by the group, we may not be that far away from a reasonable
> level of conformance across the products tested. However, I believe it
> to be a bit premature to make a statement that "the MIB is now ready" for
> ISV implementation...unless, of course, said ISVs are willing to
> develop quite a bit of special-case code to handle the variations seen
> at the bake-off.
>> Chuck, I feel compelled to respond like this due to the fact that
> your statement appears to be just the kind of thing a marketing
> organization might pick up and quote someplace. I don't think
> that would be appropriate, at least not at this time.
>> I wish it were different, believe me!
>> > If there is another bake-off I would like to see more work done up
> > front to define the testing that is going to be done and the report
> > that going to be filled. I appreciate Genoa testing the hr variables
> > but I would have liked to see a more complete test of the printer-MIB
> > done.
>> Amen to that, Chuck! I also get the feeling that since I've been doing
> the bulk of the complaining about the mis-implementations, then I'll be
> expected to be a "significant contributor" in the development of a more
> detailed test suite. (And just when I thought I could take a vacation
> this month... :-(