>As a follow up to this request that was part of the 3/5/97
>> - Recommendation for 5 new hrPrinterDetectedErrorState bits. Agree to
>> pursue. Should be easy. Lloyd will approach IETF. If not quick and
>> easy, fall back to defining from existing set of bits.
>Where we stand on this is that we have a good opportunity to
>make minor modifications to the HR MIB, such as the one above.
>However, this will not happen until after the April IETF meeting.
>Please go ahead and assume that these five bits can be added,
>and we will have final confirmation by late April/early May.
First, let me say THANKS for looking into this for us. I'm inclined
to receive this as good news.
However, I need some clarification on the status.
We've been working on moving the Printer MIB forward for more than
a year now. Tightening the definition of the "top 25" alerts ranks
high on the list of meaningful accomplishments. We can't afford
to proceed with the assumption that hrMIB will accept the new
hrPrinterDetectedErrorState bits only to find out in *May* that
this is not so.
Is it just "paper work" that will have to wait until May? If we do
proceed, as recommended is there any chance the change will be rejected