I assume that you are unable to attend the meeting? Thats too bad, because
I though we were making some good progress on understanding SENSE.
One of the hot items for IPP is how to do notifications which we deleted
at the last minute from the Model document, so that we could publish the
RFC without notification for the time being and work a real solution in
a short time period after publishing V1.0. The desire is to agree on
something quick enough that IPP implementations can converge on it, rather
than implementors coming up with their own (different) solutions.
We need to avoid the problem in IPP that we see in SNMP where each
implementor does his/her own private trap registration mechanism.
I hope that we can discuss IPP notification in the IPP meeting, anyway,
and use as much of SENSE as makes sense.
So others of us need to read the SENSE specs for the IPP discussion.
Tom
At 09:47 01/05/1998 PST, Jay Martin wrote:
>Ron Bergman wrote:
>
>> I agree with Harry, let's not overlap the agenda items.
>>
>> I do not anticipate any time required for the Job MIB so that Thursday can
>> be shared by IPP and SENSE. I assume that Friday is still reserved for
>> the Finisher MIB.
>
>Sorry, but there will be no SENSE session at the upcoming January
>PWG meetings in Hawaii. :-(
>
> ...jay
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
>-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
>-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
>-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>