Sorry for not catching this change sooner. We've been
pretty swamped with voluminous drafts in the PWG over
the past couple of years. Hopefully you can understand
how such a change might have been missed.
So, can you give us some kind of a response to our questions?
Bobby Krupczak wrote:
> >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.