>In short,
>
> 1. put all the real fixes in Printer MIB II, due out some time in t=
he
> future
>
> 2. provide help, clarifications, and perhaps minor improvements,=
but
> do not really mess with RFC1759. Maybe take it to draft status, m=
aybe
> a new proposed, maybe just an informational RFC to assist in
> ambiguities. But avoid the impression that we are scrapping the w=
hole
> thing and starting over.
Bill, I think there are choices between these two. I've expressed
disappointment, lately, with the IETF process as it has related to our =
MIBs,
but my proposal for prtDetectedErrors is really a fairly minor change
to RFC1759 which gives us a lot of leverage in terms of addressing
needs identified during interop testing. I would think this is EXACTLY
the sort of thing the IETF would expect, hope, want to happen on the wa=
y
from Proposed to Draft! Granted, it's happening late... that's because
all the while we thought it would happen in the hrMIB and it never has.=
So, while my proposal may have triggered discussion which makes it appe=
ar we
need to search the depths of our charter... I think it can be taken at
face value as a very positive step.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
=