I am personally happy to make the change. Hope that none of the IPP
attendents have changed their home flights!
At 10:21 AM 10/25/97 PDT, Jay Martin wrote:
>Sorry, but I believe we're wasting valuable time here.
>> I must leave the PWG meetings on Thursday at noon therefore
>> having a PMP session on Thursday afternoon will not work.
>> Regardless, I think this is the type of issue that is best
>> worked out over the mailing list anyway.
>If you must leave the PWG meetings by noon--and you won't let
>anyone else act on your behalf as Chairman--then why don't we
>move the PWG Wednesday schedule to:
> 8:00 - 10:00: PMP
> 10:30 - 3:00: IPP
> 3:30 - 5:30: Sense
>That way you can make it, and the IPP-only attendees get to
>sleep in a bit.
>Carl-Uno: do you have any problems with this slight change
> in the IPP schedule? Please confirm asap.
>If this change is not possible, then perhaps the PMP should
>meet on WEDNESDAY NIGHT to resolve these and other PMP issues.
>Lloyd, we need to nail this issue once and for all such that
>we don't revisit it again.
>> I would like to
>> hear more discussion before charging down a path of rolling
>> this fix into the MIB.
>Lloyd, with all due respect, exactly what is it you expect
>in terms of a response? Harry has posted at least two messages
>on this topic, and got (only) two POSITIVE responses (from Tom
>and myself). There were NO negative responses.
>If you believe one or more vendors is concerned about Harry's
>proposal, then please say so. (For all we know, Lexmark may
>be concerned for some reason...)
>It is important to realize that the PWG hasn't done a very good
>job historically in driving stakes in the ground with respect
>to "voting" and "deadlines". Just saying "I'd like to see what
>other folks have to say..." is fine, but if you're looking to
>draw consensus, then you must ask something like:
> "I would like to hear what others on the list have to say
> about this topic. Please submit your comments no later
> than XXX, afterwhich I will draw consensus from the posted
> comments received as of that date."
>Without a firm deadline, most issues will languish indefinitely.
>We must do a better job of guiding discussion and resolutions
>in a timely and well-defined manner.
>> This is the type of problem that can
>> be worked out in a very logical fashion. There actually are a
>> very simple set of questions that need to be answered and the
>> solution should become very obvious:
>> 1. Is this a problem that needs to be fixed?
>> I would like to hear from more of the host application providers.
>> Harry, Jay, and Tom have replied that they think it needs to be
>Unless you specifically request input from specific participants
>(either publicly or privately), then you can't expect a response.
>That has ALWAYS been the history of the PWG. (Most participants
>are developers actively engaged in product development, with little
>time to "chat" on mailing lists.)
>> 2. What is the solution to the problem if it needs to be fixed?
>> Harry has proposed a solution. My concern is that the fix not
>> break any host applications that have appeared to date. I think
>> Harry's proposal where we continue to use the existing bits and
>> use the additional bits to add additional information seems to
>> be a good compromise. However again I would like to hear from
>> the host application providers.
>Sorry, but I'm really confused here. Are you asking for ALTERNATIVE
>proposals to fix the problem, or what?? I have already publicly
>stated that Harry's proposal does not "break" our implementations;
>more importantly, we stand ready to change our implementation to
>fit Harry's proposal in any case. Apparently Xerox (via Tom)
>believes something must be done here, although no specific comments
>were posted in Tom's message (unfortunately).
>> This is one situation where we need to forgot what happened in
>> the past and decide how to move forward. I am going to start
>> a new thread for this discussion primarily to gather answers
>> to the first question.
>I guess I just don't get it, Lloyd. Forget what? An unfortunate
>binding to an IETF effort that has since languished?
>Look, Harry's proposed solution is very, VERY simple, with only
>the absolute minimum "tweaks" to the HR MIB integration. Moreover,
>Harry's solution proposes to extend the HR MIB in one small area
>that was explicitly designed to handle such extensions (ie, the
>status bits of the status octet string).
>We couldn't ask for a more simple, extensible solution.
>> We should not let Draft Standard or Proposed Standard influence
>> our decision. It appears in discussions that Chris and I have
>> had with our Area Directors that the best thing for the new
>> Printer MIB is to go to Proposed and then when the HR MIB
>> goes to Draft, we go to Draft immediately afterwards.
>My position has been the same all along: as long as all players
>in the printer (and related) industries all use the same spec,
>then it doesn't matter which organization "sponsors" the spec.
>Draft? Proposed? Sanctified? Holy Scroll? Who cares?
>What we should ALL care about is whether the HR MIB is changed
>in the future such that it interferes with the current Printer
>MIB integration. For example, what happens if the HR MIB is
>changed such that our use of the "HR MIB magic cookie" values
>changes? Then what???
>With all due respect, the PMP really should address Harry's
>concerns in a timely manner. To date we have effectively
>blown off his repeated attempts to address and repair this
>longstanding situation. Let's resolve this once and for all.
>Besides, the solution is SIMPLE, for once.
>-- JK Martin | Email: firstname.lastname@example.org --
>-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
>-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
>-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514