PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Revised proposal on definition of OCTET STRING to allow superset of ASCII

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Revised proposal on definition of OCTET STRING to allow superset of ASCII

Re: PMP> Revised proposal on definition of OCTET STRING to allow superset of ASCII

JK Martin (jkm@underscore.com)
Tue, 22 Jul 1997 14:10:10 -0400 (EDT)

Chris,

> Please remember that in IETF Working Groups, we have to have
> *technical* discussion and consensus based on technical positions; it
> is not sufficient to say "I am from company X, and we're against it."
> If you are against it, you need to supply technical arguments.

What if you're against a proposal because you believe the time it
would take to assimilate the proposal into the working draft would
exceed the deadline for the draft?

Please note that I am *only* against making any major changes to the
current draft IFF such changes would cause a scheduling problem with
the current draft.

I have already gone on record as saying I believe Ira McDonald's
major proposal for L10N/I18N was excellent in principle, but that
it didn't look like we could fully resolve it before our deadline.

And for THAT reason--and that reason ALONE--I came out against that
particular proposal.

Now, regarding Tom's most recent proposal--which is definitely a scaled
down form of introducing L10N/I18N to the Printer MIB--there are some
in the PMP who believe it is not quite worth the effort. Futhermore,
the Printer MIB standardization should address L10N/I18N in the *next*
round of standards effort, and that such effort should commence
immediately (once the current draft is published).

I personally have no problems with Tom's proposal...but I have not
had the time to FULLY examine the ramifications to assess whether
it is a good thing or not. (And I know there are others on the PMP
list who are in pretty much the same position.)

...jay