PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Syntax change

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Syntax change

Re: PMP> Syntax change

Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 10:57:29 -0500

You should have pointed out the change. It was totally unexpected. Can =
we focus
on what, if anything, warrants the change?

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
harryl@us.ibm.com

rdk@empiretech.com on 11/16/98 07:31:13 PM
Please respond to rdk@empiretech.com
To: jkm@underscore.com
cc: pmp@pwg.org, rdk@empiretech.com, lpyoung@lexmark.com, chrisw@iwl.co=
m, Harry
Lewis/Boulder/IBM@ibmus
Subject: Re: PMP> Syntax change

Hi!

>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), w=
e noticed
>> (for the first time) that hrPrinterDetectedErrorState syntax was cha=
nged from
>> octetString to Bits!! I have determined that this will result in cod=
e 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.

Bobby

=