PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> IETF concerns regarding the Printer MIB draft???

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> IETF concerns regarding the Printer MIB draft???

Re: PMP> IETF concerns regarding the Printer MIB draft???

Chris Wellens (chrisw@iwl.com)
Tue, 12 Aug 1997 22:45:56 -0700 (PDT)

Neither Lloyd Young nor I have received any IETF communication
regarding problems with the Printer MIB or a decision to hold it up
from going to Draft. In fact, the MIB document was submitted, and our
interoperability report was submitted, but the formal email request
from the WG Chairs to advance to Draft has not been submitted yet.

The PMP met every single requirement for advancing to Draft. The
interoperability test results were meticulous. If there are technical
decisions that need to be explained and clarified, then we will go
ahead and address them with the IESG and our ADs.

I have sent off more email requesting clarification on this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--==--==--==- Chris Wellens President & CEO
==--==--==--= Email: chrisw@iwl.com Web: http://www.iwl.com/
--==--==--==- InterWorking Labs, Inc. 244 Santa Cruz Ave, Aptos, CA 95003
==--==--==--= Tel: +1 408 685 3190 Fax: +1 408 662 9065
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, JK Martin wrote:

> >From Randy Turner's recent minutes on the IPP WG meeting
> at the IETF plenary last week:
>
> 16. Use of MIME types for "document-format"
>
> Currently, the model document specifies the use of Printer MIB
> enumerations for specification of document-format. In addition,
> at a recent IPP meeting, it was agreed that enumerations for
> PDF and HTML would be added to this list.
>
> Upon hearing the proposed alignment with the Printer MIB for
> these values, "a lively discussion ensued".
>
> It was the opinion of Larry Masinter (chair of HTTP WG), Keith
> Moore, and most of the IETF audience that alignment with the
> Printer MIB was a mistake, and that we should focus on sticking
> with MIME-type specifications.
>
> Further, Keith Moore went on to say that the current draft of
> the Printer MIB was "broken", and that he is seriously
> considering delaying advancement of the Printer MIB draft until
> this (and possibly other) issues are addressed. Keith did not
> go into any detailed analysis of why the MIB was broken, but
> seemed to suggest that there were more than one reason why it's
> broken. He went on to say that its possible that (ironically)
> the IESG might suggest to the working group that the Printer
> MIB should align itself with the MIME-types and change the way
> that interpreters are enumerated in the MIB. He suggested that
> the group should consider strings, and not enumerations, to
> specify these types (i.e., MIME types). Keith was pretty adamant
> on this issue and would have conntinued discussion, but Steve Z.
> and Scott suggested that discussion on the Printer MIB was
> not appropriate at an IPP WG meeting.
>
>
> This is *most* disconcerting. Can someone shed some light on this
> situation?
>
> In particular, I find it rather disappointing that such statements
> were made in Germany...yet nothing of the sort was posted on the
> mailing list.
>
> I could have sworn that ALL public comments were supposed to be
> published on the mailing lists.
>
> ...jay
>