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???

JK Martin (jkm@underscore.com)
Mon, 18 Aug 1997 15:36:01 -0400 (EDT)

Scott,

Thanks for the background info on these newly discovered issues.

> "If Keith says that you will receive considerable pushback from the IESG if
> you align IPP with Printer MIB enums for document format rather than MIME
> types, interpret that to mean that the IESG will reject any propsal that is
> based on Printer MIB enums rather than MIME types for document format
> identifiers."

Personally, I don't really have a problem with moving from enums to
MIME types in the Printer MIB. (Others, though, may have some *real*
problems.)

The thing that concerns me is that the Munich meeting is the first time
anyone on the PMP list has heard about these attitudes and positions.
This situation does not make the IETF look very good, unfortunately.
We really must address this kind of problem so that it doesn't happen
in the future.

> At this point in the discussion, is where Keith suggested that the
> Printer MIB was "broken" in this regard and that it would need to be
> "fixed" before being able to be progressed by the IESG.

Alright, I'll bite: how is the Printer MIB broken?

And again, why was it in Munich that the public was first made aware of
this critical situation? (I realize, Scott, that you probably don't
have an answer to this question, but perhaps someone out there can shed
some light on this situation.)

> Jay, you included a concern that public comments be addressed on the
> discussion list. I assumed that all comments made at the meeting were
> "public" comments and that they would be captured in the meeting notes
> and hence published on the mailing list. This is what happened, however
> the disucssion list and meeting minutes were for IPP, not PMP.

Sure, the meeting minutes (or equivalent) of the Munich meeting are
public. However, I was refering to the fact that no public posting
of concerns for the Printer MIB being broken were posted on the PMP
mailing list...as mandated by the IETF (right?).

If the Printer MIB is indeed "broken", then by all means we surely
want to fix it. However, many of us have been working very, VERY
hard for a long time now to get the latest draft out...only to find
that some IETF people in charge have serious concerns about the draft,
and that we are only now finding out about after we have essentially
finished our work.

I have really come to admire the IETF's "lean-and-mean" approach to
developing public standards, however this kind of situation is not
in the best interest of anyone. Not for the IETF, and certainly not
for the many participants who have spent *considerable* time and money
to get the Printer MIB this far.

Am I alone in this belief? (If I am, then I'll be more than happy
to shutup and just deal with this kind of activity in the future.)

> Thanks to you, we have now started this on the PMP discussion list. As
> Randy's notes indicate, there was fairly persuasive and strong comments
> about using MIME types. I don't know if any more on this discussion
> should be carried out on the IPP or PWG mailing lists?

By all means, let's get some public comment on moving from enums to
MIME type strings, particularly from the many vendors who are currently
shipping Printer MIB products.

...jay