>To be more precise:
>
>When IPP is being used for transporting a message (document, print
>instructions) from a willing sender to a willing recipient, alignment
>with other widely implemented and deployed Internet protocols for
>message transmission (mail, fax, Web) is more useful than alignment with
>some hypothetical and not widely deployed protocol for system management
>and monitoring of the status of a device.
but the author misrepresents the fact that Printer MIB Interpreter Languages
are enumerated in the MIB and registered with IANA (on recommendation of
the IETF) to support knowledge of the CAPABILITIES and default configuration
of the printer - especially the notion of a default PDL for a print "channel"
or a means of printing to the device. I believe this is similar to the
requirements of IPP. I'm not arguing against MIME registration of PDLs for
IPP (I don't see why we shouldn't facilitate both MIME and enums).
Also, I think characterization of the Printer MIB as not widely deployed
is subjective (and somewhat misinformed) and could be harmful to those who
have worked hard to support this standard if it came from an "IETF official".
If nothing else, it might help explain some of the "jitters" we've seen lately
from the IESG with respect to aligning standards in the world of print.
Harry Lewis