Now you have me very confused. I thought that we decided on the mailing
list and at a meeting several months ago (the Toronto meeting, Aug 19) to
stop trying to make the Printer MIB a draft standard and to republish it has
a proposed standard, obsoleting RFC 1759. Then we aren't held up by the HR
The very nature of the Printer MIB is that it is somewhat extensible, by
adding enums. So it is never completely unchanging and, therefore, it is
never a candidate for a draft standard. Also be keeping it as a proposed
standard, like most IETF standards, we can add additional groups if we want
to. But if we progress it to a draft standard, we can't.
So I don't want to hear anything more about the HR MIB holding up the
Printer MIB. There is no holding up for publishing the Printer MIB as a
>From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 14:39
>Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
>Subject: PMP> Re: FIN> Finisher MIB, Where do we go from here?
>Believe me I wish I knew the estimated time table. I know this is very
>frustrating for everyone on the Printer MIB and Finisher MIB
>We are still waiting on the HR MIB to progress forward.
>Hindsight is always
>20-20 but dovetailing the Printer MIB with the Host Resources
>MIB was one
>of the worst things we did. Progress is being made on the HR MIB but it
>is extremely slow moving. Chris and I are doing everything we can do to
>force it to move faster but it is still moving slow.
>The only answer that moves the Finisher MIB forward at it's own pace
>is to divorce itself from the Printer MIB (which in turn is married
>to the HR MIB).
>email@example.com on 11/04/98 05:06:56 PM
>To: Lloyd Young@LEXMARK
>Subject: Re: FIN> Finisher MIB, Where do we go from here?
>Assuming that there is a strong consensus for option 2, what is your
>estimated time table for submission of the documents to the IESG?
>One big advantage of option #2: The Finisher MIB can be at a different
>standards level than the Printer MIB and any problems in the
>should not hold up the Printer MIB. (i.e. even though they
>together, they do not necessarily have to be published
>together. But it
>would sure be nice if they were.:)
> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.
>On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> 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.
>> ------ Ron's original message -------
>> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:44:22 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
>> From: Ron Bergman <email@example.com>
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
>> Cc: Lloyd Young <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Chris Wellens <email@example.com>
>> Subject: FIN> Finisher MIB, Where do we go from here?
>> Message-Id: <Pine.WNT.3.96.981029160859.121Efirstname.lastname@example.org>
>> X-X-Sender: email@example.com
>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Status: R
>> I am going to submit the latest finisher MIB to
>> 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
>> the Printer MIB and the current draft is dependent upon the updated
>> Printer MIB, our options for the current draft are somewhat
>> 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
>> 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.
>> 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: email@example.com Lexington, KY 40550
>> Phone: (606) 232-5150 Fax: (606) 232-6740