PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> FIN> Finisher MIB, Where do we go from here?

PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> FIN> Finisher MIB, Where do we go from here?

RE: PMP> FIN> Finisher MIB, Where do we go from here?

Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:58:13 -0800

I agree with option 2 as well. If a printer doesn't do finishing, then
it can ignore the Finisher MIB. Its a separate module. But if you do
implement the FIN MIB, there are three MANDATORY GROUPs.

Tom

>-----Original Message-----
>From: lpyoung@lexmark.com [mailto:lpyoung@lexmark.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 14:08
>To: pmp@pwg.org; fin@pwg.org
>Subject: PMP> FIN> Finisher MIB, Where do we go from here?
>
>
>Chris and I discussed this with regards to what would be the
>best thing for the Printer MIB. Because we are finally getting
>some attention from our IETF Area Directors on the HR MIB and
>the Printer MIB, we feel that interjecting option 3 into the mix
>is not the appropriate thing to do. It would only slow down the
>progress that has been made to date. I know that it has been
>invisible progress to most of you but there has been progress
>none the less. With the assumption that option 2 means the Printer
>MIB and the Finisher MIB would have two RFC numbers, the advantage
>of option 2 over option 1 is that the Finisher MIB would have
>a RFC number faster. Option 2 appears to be the best choice.
>
>Lloyd
>
>------ Ron's original message -------
>Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:44:22 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
>From: Ron Bergman <rbergma@dpc.com>
>To: fin@pwg.org, pmp@pwg.org
>Cc: Lloyd Young <lpyoung@lexmark.com>, Chris Wellens <chrisw@iwl.com>
>Subject: FIN> Finisher MIB, Where do we go from here?
>Message-Id: <Pine.WNT.3.96.981029160859.121E-100000@rbergm.dpc.com>
>X-X-Sender: rbergma@newmai.dpc.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>Sender: fin-owner@pwg.org
>Status: R
>
>I am going to submit the latest finisher MIB to
>Internet-Drafts tomorrow.
>This is the version posted last week with the changes to fix the
>compilation problems reported by Ira, with the addition of the
>change to
>finSupplyCurrentLevel requested by Paul Henerlau.
>
>Now, where do we go from here? Since the Finisher MIB is an
>extension of
>the Printer MIB and the current draft is dependent upon the updated
>Printer MIB, our options for the current draft are somewhat limited. I
>can think of four possibilities;
>
> 1. Wait until the Printer MIB is assigned an RFC number and
>then submit
> the Finisher MIB.
>
> 2. Submit both the Printer MIB and the Finisher MIB to the IESG as a
> set.
>
> 3. Integrate the Finisher MIB into the Printer MIB and submit the
> combined MIB to the IESG.
>
> 4. The only other alternative is to remove the dependencies upon the
> Printer MIB Textual Conventions, and submit immediately.
>
>I don't believe that number 4 is in our long term best
>interests. 2 and 3
>are the only reasonable alternatives.
>
>Comments?
>
>
> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Lloyd Young Lexmark International, Inc.
>Senior Program Manager Dept. C08L/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
>
>