I may have missed something in this interchange. What determines
constituency of the working group? Is it everyone on the distribution list?
Everyone that responds? Everyone that has their name in the internet draft?
On the chance that it is one of the latter two, I would like to enter an
abstention to the request since I have neither a objection to it nor a need
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 9:19 AM
Subject: PMP> New Media Path Device alert
The final call on Harry's proposed change expires on Tuesday July 20th.
If you are in favor of this change, send your approval to the PMP mailing
list. After the 20th, I will tally the approval votes and if the consensus
of the working group is for the change, it will be incorporated.
-------- Forwarded by Lloyd Young/Lex/Lexmark on 07/07/99 09:09 AM ---------
firstname.lastname@example.org on 07/06/99 04:13:08 PM
To: Lloyd Young@LEXMARK
Subject: Re: PMP> Final call on Printer MIB changes
Thanks, Lloyd, for arranging the final call.
In the PrtAlertCodeTC Textual Convention, Media Path Device Group, I would
"cannotDuplexMediaSelected(1304)" (This is the exact wording of the change
the Printer MIB)
This alert is for cases where the duplex path is the limiting factor (not
input or output tray) and is intended to encompass size limitations as well
media characteristics such as Envelop and Transparency which are not
IBM Printing Systems