PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Printer MIB Working Group mtg. in Boulder

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Printer MIB Working Group mtg. in Boulder

Re: PMP> Printer MIB Working Group mtg. in Boulder

Jay Martin (jkm@underscore.com)
Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:49:10 -0500

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------1846665211999BFD05CC0A3B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I couldn't agree more with Harry.

Listen folks, things are getting very strange here. At the very
least, the PWG--and not just the PMP--should discuss this situation
and learn how to cope with it.

The situation here is that several people have stood up and said
we should finally address a problem that should have been addressed
a long time ago. One one person has put the brakes on this effort,
with no apparent backing from anyone else in the PMP group.

This situation is a precedent in the 4 year history of the PWG,
and it should be addressed by the group while the Boulder meetings
are in progress. Carl-Uno has already stated that the schedule
change on Thursday is quite acceptable to him (as IPP chairman),
and so the 2-hour slot of 8:00-10:00am will be used for general
discussion in the PWG to determine how the group should handle
this kind of situation, both now and in the future.

It is perfectly understandable that Lloyd wants to resolve this
situation over the mailing list. This is fine. However, to
"refuse" discussion of this longstanding Printer MIB problem is,
quite frankly, unacceptable. Since when has the PWG refused to
discuss a pertinent issue during its regularly scheduled meetings?

Drawing final consensus on the public mailing list is the proper
thing to do, but discussing key issues at our face-to-face meetings
has always been a very *critical* aspect of PWG operations from the
outset.

Frankly, the one thing that concerns some of us is that no one
has come out against the proposal, despite repeated public attempts
to draw out postings from the participants. Historically, the PWG
(as well as *many* other DL-based standards groups) has considered
public silence as a sort of "silent acceptance" of the given
proposal.

If anyone out there--and I mean ANYONE--has an opinion on Harry's
proposal, please post your opinions on the PMP mailing list ASAP.

...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03015-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------1846665211999BFD05CC0A3B
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from uscore.underscore.com (uscore.underscore.com [199.125.69.1]) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA14484 for <pop-jkm@pwg.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:55:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lists.underscore.com (uscore-2.mv.com [199.125.85.31]) by uscore.underscore.com (8.8.4/8.7.2) with ESMTP id QAA22462; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:54:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA14468; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:54:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:54:36 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA14427 for pmp-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:53:04 -0500 (EST)
Priority: Urgent
From: Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com>
To: <pmp@pwg.org>
Subject: PMP> Printer MIB Working Group mtg. in Boulder
Message-ID: <5030300013066533000002L032*@MHS>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:58:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: pmp-owner@pwg.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

My opinion...

1. We've waited WAY too long for hrMIB changes. If the only reason they=
are
starting back up is for us... tell them to forget it, don't waste their=
time...
my proposal is a much better solution in that we gain control of our de=
stiny...
something we should have done a LONG time ago!

2. The proposed improvement, addresses function which is CORE BROKEN an=
d
appears to have support from within our community. Stalling, now, for t=
he same
old reason... "walking on IETF egg shells" will get us nowhere.

3. Any face-to-face PWG meeting will inevitable exclude the parties who=
could
not attend. Are there people who can say they would have come to Boulde=
r had
they known there was an active PMP topic but did not come because there=
wasn't?
If there are interested parties, willing to meet, why not take advantag=
e of
this? Decision still require e-mail reflector time and review.
What's the problem having a meeting in Boulder if the people here want =
to?

If someone objects to my proposal on merit please recommend the alterna=
tive. If
someone objects on the basis that it is too disruptive to current prot=
otypes
of the current Printer MIB, please indicate so. I can accept these as v=
alid
criticism. I have a real hard time accepting the fact the hrMIB MIGHT t=
ake a
look at our problem or the IETF might or might not approve the activity=
as a
valid reason to stall.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

---------------------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 10/27/97=
02:38 PM
---------------------------

pmp-owner@pwg.org on 10/27/97 12:19:57 PM
Please respond to pmp-owner@pwg.org @ internet
To: pmp@pwg.org @ internet
cc:
Subject: PMP> Printer MIB Working Group mtg. in Boulder

There will not be a Printer MIB working group meeting in Boulder.
We will address the Error Status Reporting issue via the mailing
list and potentially a conference call if required. The only
Printer MIB activity on the agenda is a 15 minute update on the
status of the Printer MIB that was requested by one person.
Because several Printer MIB working group participants will not
be in Boulder, I will give you a written update. The HR MIB working
group should be starting up in the next week or so to move the
HR MIB to Draft Standard. BTW, the HR MIB Working Group activity
is only occurring because of our requirement. The request to add
our new definitions to the previously reserved bits to
hrPrinterDetectedErrorState has been forwarded to the HR MIB
Working Group chairman. We will need to withdraw that request
if we decide to go a different route to address error reporting.
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.

------------------------------------------------------------
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

=

--------------1846665211999BFD05CC0A3B--