>'Chris and I believe that if we make NO changes to
>the new Printer MIB after being at Proposed then we have an excellent
>opportunity to bypass the six month wait. A big part of the reasoning
>is that we have made few changes to the new Printer MIB from RFC 1759
>and have considerable interoperability testing on implementations of
>RFC 1759.'
...I can't help but think that we are misinterpreting IETF policy and m=
issing
the whole intent of interoperability testing. I can't believe the IETF =
would
actually enforce a policy which results in a knowledgeable and active b=
ody,
such as ourselves, to "drag our feet" on developing refinements, especi=
ally
when they are in direct response to the interoperability testing which =
the IETF
requires!
I know the reasoning cited is well intended. Lloyd has had a difficult =
job
trying to guide the Printer MIB to it's next level and I can sympathize=
with
wanting to bring that to successful completion (i.e. don't rock the boa=
t!). I
have been convinced, however, since I witnessed the IETF response to th=
e job
MIB and our inability to extend an obviously extendable octet string in=
the
hrMIB that it's more a matter of loosening the straight jacket so we ca=
n ROW in
a meaningful direction!
Harry
------ Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 10/27/97 10:12 PM -----
pmp-owner@pwg.org on 10/27/97 03:54:35 PM
Please respond to pmp-owner@pwg.org @ internet
To: pmp@pwg.org @ internet
cc:
Subject: RE: PMP> Printer MIB Working Group mtg. in Boulder
Bob,
You are correct in what I am suggesting.
With regards to your question, the exact letter of the law says
that something must be at a Proposed Standard level for six months
before progressing to Draft Standard. However there are exceptions
to this rule and Chris and I believe that if we make NO changes to
the new Printer MIB after being at Proposed then we have an excellent
opportunity to bypass the six month wait. A big part of the reasoning
is that we have made few changes to the new Printer MIB from RFC 1759
and have considerable interoperability testing on implementations of
RFC 1759. If we go this route and our Area Directors do not find enough=
justification to wave the six month wait period then they probably
would not have find enough justification to have accepted the new Print=
er
MIB as a Draft Standard now anyway and we would still have had to
recycle the new Printer MIB through Proposed anyway.
Lloyd
------------
bpenteco%boi.hp.com@interlock.lexmark.com
10/27/97 05:10 PM
To: Lloyd Young@Lexmark
cc: pmp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com
bcc:
Subject: RE: PMP> Printer MIB Working Group mtg. in Boulder
Lloyd,
I'm not sure that I follow you. You said:
> With regards to moving the Printer MIB to Draft Standard, our
> Area Directors have taken a hard line stand that a MIB cannot be
> advanced from Proposed to Draft if any new function has been added
> to a MIB, deletion of function is the only acceptable change.
> Based on this position, the best thing for us to do to move forward
> is to submit the new Printer MIB as a Proposed Standard. If we still
> want to go to Draft Standard, wait until the HR MIB goes to Draft and=
> then quickly submit the new Printer MIB as a Draft Standard as well.
Are you suggesting that we submit the new Printer MIB as a Proposed
Standard and then, if Draft Standard status is desired, submit the new
Printer MIB as Draft Standard after the HR MIB goes to Draft Standard? =
If
so, is there a time delay required for the Printer MIB to stay at the
Proposed Standard level (that might prevent us from moving to Draft
Standard to immediately follow the HR MIB)?
Bob
=