PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> IPP "channel" in the Printer MIB

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> IPP "channel" in the Printer MIB

Re: PMP> IPP "channel" in the Printer MIB

Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Tue, 1 Jun 1999 08:34:23 -0700

Thanks for the explanation.

What is the deadline for positive or negative comments (or silence)?

This message bounced which I sent last Wednesday. Don said that the PWG
mail server was having some troubles.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 22:20
To: 'lpyoung@lexmark.com'
Cc: pmp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> Re: PMP> IPP "channel" in the Printer MIB

Thanks for the explanation.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: lpyoung@lexmark.com [mailto:lpyoung@lexmark.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 14:27
To: hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com
Cc: pmp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> Re: PMP> IPP "channel" in the Printer MIB

Tom,

It was not about having the power or not having the power.
It was about making certain that the change was a good change.
We are hopefully close to publishing the Printer MIB as a Standard
document and the last thing I wanted to do was to put in a last
minute change that had not been reviewed by a lot of people.
Generally people will not vote for something unless they have
reviewed it. Therefore I decided to measure consensus on this
item by asking for a show of hands from those that wanted to
vote in favor of the change.

Lloyd

hastings%cp10.es.xerox.com@interlock.lexmark.com on 05/25/99 01:53:33 PM

To: Lloyd Young@LEXMARK
cc: pmp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com
Subject: RE: IPP> Re: PMP> IPP "channel" in the Printer MIB

Lloyd,

I understand that you have the power to change the way we have worked.
But why have you made such a change, especially for a registration?

In the past we (and you) have used the approach that silence implies
approval, not disapproval.

That is, the most effective technique used is one in which
the chairperson announces something like:

"If I don't hear any serious objections by such-and-such
a date, then the proposal will be considered approved by
the group."

Why not continue the usual IETF PMP WG approach?

Thanks,
Tom