>This is not good for me, either. Can anyone explain
>why this was done? I can get behind this kind of change
>if someone can clearly delineate the positive aspects of
>using a Bit string as opposed to octetString.
>Harry Lewis wrote:
>> During discussion and review at the "MIB meeting" in Tucson (PWG), we noticed
>> (for the first time) that hrPrinterDetectedErrorState syntax was changed from
>> octetString to Bits!! I have determined that this will result in code changes
>> for us. We are, therefore OPPOSED to this change! Can someone state the reason
>> for this change? Is anyone adamantly opposed to leaving it as is?
I love this response!!!! Ive been awaiting feedback from various
printer working group people for 6 months and only now that its gone
through 2 revisions and only now that Im working on the
interoperability report for the IETF that anyone objects.
Harry Lewis, in particular, should have made these comments much much
earlier in the process.