PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP>URGENT: SYNTHESIS proposal on definition of OCTET

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP>URGENT: SYNTHESIS proposal on definition of OCTET

Re: PMP>URGENT: SYNTHESIS proposal on definition of OCTET

Tom Hastings (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:42:34 PDT

At 08:26 07/23/97 PDT, Ron Bergman wrote:

snip...

>My preference at this time is to incorporate a solution to the
>localization problem in the next version of the document.

Process question:

If we don't fix the Printer MIB now and forward it as a draft standard
to the IESG without solving at least the code set identification issue,
what happens next?

Possibilities:

1. They could fix it for us.

2. They could approve it as it is as a draft standard. If so, how
could we "incorporate a solution to the localization problem in the
next version of the document"? Isn't a draft standard almost impossible
to add to later?

3. They could reject it and send it back to us for fixing.

Tom

P.S. Please note, I'm only trying to fix the code set identification issue
for the objects of type OCTET STRING that aren't subject to the
localization mechanism we already have in the Printer MIB. I'm not
tring to solve the full localization problem for those objects.
I'm not sure the benefit is worth it and I'm not sure we could
come up with a specification that we could all agree to.