PMP Mail Archive: Re[2]: PMP> Status of Printer MIB

PMP Mail Archive: Re[2]: PMP> Status of Printer MIB

Re[2]: PMP> Status of Printer MIB

Bill Wagner (bwagner@digprod.com)
Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:51:14 -0400

There are two distinct implications in Lloyd's suggestion/request.

1. a well documented, widely implemented MIB will become a defacto
standard (and we should proceed with version 2 of the printer MIB in
this basis)

2. The Proposed standard level is an adequate an appropriate level
for documentation

I agree with the first point. In retrospect, I think that if we had
simply developed a MIB without trying to conform to the inconsistent
dictates of IETF/IESG/whoever, we would have had something a bit more
suitable quite a bit faster. I got the notion that Harald had
suggested, in a message after the Munich meeting, pretty much the idea
that an industry should make its MIB's independent of IESG...that the
current powers that be were not interested in printers or power
supplies or toasters provided that they did nothing to confuse or clog
the internet.

I am not so sure of the idea of a proposed standard RFC being the
proper way to document this industry standard. Although the rules are
modified when convenient, I seem to recall a two year limit on
proposed standards? And, will the IETF consider a proposed standard as
something to be maintained or is that up to the whim of whoever
happens to be making the determination at the time? If the IETF does
not take ownership, who does? Does a standard not owned and supported
have any weight?

The implication is that some other continuing body should assume
ownership. This could be the PWG (although I suspect it would require
that the group assume a more corporate nature); perhaps it could be
IEEE with whom the PWG has long worked. I think that something like
this may be necessary.

The problem of the official OID position in MIB 2 (rather than
something shunted off into the enterprise MIB's) is a concern. The
MIB's for all implementers should appear under the same OID. Perhaps
IETF will make up a new category of OID for industry standards not
specificlaly monitored by the IETF. Alternatively, I recall when we
were considering a MIF to become a MIB, DMTF had suggested that IETF
was unpredictable, but that if IETF did not accept the printer MIB and
give it a slot, it could be put under the general DMTF slot (does DMTF
still have an OID? Does IEEE have an OID?

Bill Wagner

Osicom/DPI

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: PMP> Status of Printer MIB
Author: Jay Martin <jkm@underscore.com> at Internet
Date: 10/1/97 2:55 PM

I tend to agree with Harry's previous response on this topic.

I know there are some folks in the PWG who really believe a standard
is only "real" if it is Draft (or higher) and is on track for full
IESG adoption.

Given the fact that the printer industry seems to have fully embraced
RFC 1759 as a Proposed standard (evidenced by the many products that
have been offered in the marketplace), does anyone really believe the
same won't be true of this new Printer MIB version?

I'm hoping that as long as we CLOSE the development of this round of
the Printer MIB (ie, no more changes!), then the printer industry
will use this new standard (having a new RFC number) as the current
benchmark for product development.

Does anyone out there disagree with this position and its assumptions?

...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------


lpyoung@lexmark.com wrote:
>
> I wanted to update you on the status of the Printer MIB. As you
> probably remember we cannot advance the Printer MIB to Draft
> Standard until the Host Resources MIB is advanced to Draft Standard.
> A chairman for a Host Resources MIB working group has been
> appointed but has been involved in SNMPv3 and has not been able
> to get the HR MIB working group going yet. He was supposed to free
> up from SNMPv3 during the month of October and subsequently start
> the HR MIB work. Chris and I have drafted our formal request to our
> Area Directors asking that the Printer MIB be considered for
> Draft Standard. Currently we have not sent the formal request
> because we are tidying up the supporting material required to
> progress the MIB forward. I do not have a firm schedule for when
> the new MIB might be moved forward due to our dependency on
> the HR MIB. If things progress as desired, we might be well on
> our way to Draft status by the end of 1997.
>
> I want to ask the working group one more time do we really want
> to move this MIB forward to a Draft Standard. On the current path,
> we are delaying getting products to market that might incorporate
> the changes in the latest Printer MIB in order to achieve the
> Draft Standard status. We could get the updated Printer MIB to
> Proposed Standard much faster than to Draft Standard. It is a
> simple trade-off of time to market versus the prestige of being
> a Draft Standard. I am not convinced that the prestige of being
> a Draft Standard is all that great. I wanted to hear opinions from
> the rest of the working group.
> Regards,
> Lloyd
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Lloyd Young Lexmark International, Inc.
> Senior Program Manager Dept. C14L/Bldg. 035-3
> Strategic Alliances 740 New Circle Road NW
> internet: lpyoung@lexmark.com Lexington, KY 40550
> Phone: (606) 232-5150 Fax: (606) 232-6740