PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Actual rules on Proposed to Draft transition

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Actual rules on Proposed to Draft transition

Re: PMP> Actual rules on Proposed to Draft transition

Ira Mcdonald x10962 (imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com)
Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:45:42 PST

Hi Randy,

Thanks. I stand corrected. I hadn't read RFC 2026. I agree that
the bar should be higher. I'm glad to see that the IETF has raised
the bar, formally. I have never believed that it is wise to move
a protocol (or MIB) from Proposed to Draft Standard without at least
two (I think it should be three) independent and INTEROPERABLE
implementations. The interoperability requirement (if the IESG
sticks to including traps, without any even Proposed Standard
for a common registration mechanism) would appear to mean that
the Printer MIB V2.0 cannot advance to Draft Standard yet.
I would also question the validity of interoperability, in light
of the problems with HR MIB objects and important Printer MIB
objects revealed in the IWL testing.

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald

PS - Note that the IETF/IESG regularly ignore their own time
limit rules - HR MIB (RFC 1514) is now old as the hills but it
is STILL at Proposed Standard level - without benign neglect
of the rules, it would be off the 'standards track' entirely,
by now.