PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Printer MIB status

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Printer MIB status

Re: PMP> Printer MIB status

harryl@us.ibm.com
Tue, 6 Jul 1999 13:57:30 -0600

Lloyd,

You are always good at feeding any items that have come up into the standing
plenary meeting which is where I expected to see these issues surface, next. I
know everyone doesn't make every meeting (unfortunately, I won't be there
tomorrow). I guess I thought most of the e-mail discussion had already run it's
course... , however.

1. The IPP channel - a natural - proposed and refined through comments. (Perhaps
a "final" proposal needs to be circulated?)
2. The new alert, a nit with no objection

The prtAlertIndex issue seemed the most serious to me in that it represents a
fairly obvious (to many) "non-compliance" issue yet has a definite element of
backward compatibility with existing implementation. Here is where I would want
to tread most cautiously.

I think PMP issues are so infrequent that it sometimes takes quite a jostle to
get us all to wake up and respond. I think your note today has accomplished that
;-).

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

lpyoung@lexmark.com on 07/06/99 12:38:42 PM

To: imcdonal@sdsp.mc.xerox.com, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
cc: pmp@pwg.org
Subject: Re: PMP> Printer MIB status

Harry and Ira,

I do not have a problem putting the new chIPP and Media
Path alert changes in the Printer MIB but here is the
statement that is in the Printer MIB for Type 2 enums
which both of these are:

enumeration (2) An initial set of values are defined
in the Printer MIB specification. Additional enumerated
values are registered after review by this working group.
The initial versions of the MIB will contain the values
registered so far. After the MIB is approved, additional
values will be registered through IANA after approval
by this working group.

Review and approval by the working group consists more
than someone identifying a problem. It requires others
from the working group to indicate on the mailing list
that they have reviewed and approved the additions. The
review and approval process does not need to be conducted
in a face to face meeting, it can be conducted on the mailing
list. But changes do require the review and approval of
the working group before they will be included.

As best as I can tell from the PMP mail archives here is the
mail history for the chIPP and Media Path alert changes:

chIPP Channel addition

- Tom Hastings submitted original proposal 5/11
- Tom Hastings submitted revised proposal 5/20
- David Kellerman noted his review and approval, also had
questions 5/27
- Ira answered David's questions and noted potential changes
and/or rewrite to revised proposal 5/27

Media path alert addition

- Harry submitted original proposal 6/3
- Harry submitted revised proposal 6/3

There has not been any other mail saying that anyone else has
reviewed or approves these changes.

Lloyd