On Thu, 26 Sep 1996 JoelGyllen at aol.com wrote:
> Lloyd Young circulated the following items based on his converstion with
> Diedra. From his mail I have selected the following for comment:
>> > Deidre also stated that in order for our MIB to proceed to a draft standard
> > must not have significant changes over the proposed standard. When I asked
> > significant meant we agreed that significant meant 50% change or more.
>> My understanding is the a 50% change would be massive. To change 50% of a
> MIB from proposed to draft is huge! I expect that anything near 50% change
> would mean going back to square 1. I was under the impression that the
> allowable changes would be an order of magnitude less than that.
Yes, Joel, you are right. Appropriate changes are changes of a clarifying
nature and small modifications to solve problems based on
user/implementor feedback. Bug-fixing requiring medium to major changes
or feature enhancements of nearly any level would require staying at
Think of this as a software quality process. You've just gone through
beta test. The rules determine whether another beta test is required. It
seems pretty clear in this case that it should not be.
BTW, these rules are based not on number of lines changed, but on the actual
impact of the changes.
> > Last but not least, our new MIB must be v2 compliant. According to Deidre
> > is no grandfather clause that we might be able to squeeze some things in
> > based on this, we need to know what changes are required in our current MIB
>> > to bring it up to a v2 compliant level.
>> I thought that when we did rfc1759 we prepared it in a way that was v2
> compliant. Perhaps the meaning of v2 is changing faster than we are. Our
> efforts were to produce a MIB that could work with either v1 or v2.
I haven't looked at the Printer MIB in a while, but I don't think there is
much to worry about here.