Tom, my apologies for assuming Dave Perkins and Xerox were one in the same.
I only recall seeing Dave's comments in a note originating from you where you
had performed some editing ... leading to my incorrect assumption. If Dave's
note made it directly to the PWG I must have missed it.
In any case, are we in agreement to leave the Attribute table as one unit, as
originally designed?
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
----------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 07/25/97 01:16 PM
-------------
hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
07/24/97 06:04 PM
Please respond to hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com @ internet
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS
cc: JMP at pwg.org @ internet
Subject: Re: JMP> Nashua JMP Minutes
Harry,
Good summary.
Tom
At 22:39 07/10/97 PDT, Harry Lewis wrote:
snip...
>>Two other issues have been introduced by Xerox post meeting.
>One, a severe change, is the recommendation to split the
>attribute table into separate tables for Integer and Octet
>values. Currently, a job attribute may have an Integer and/or
>Octet value, both of which are represented in the same table
>entry. The other new issue pertains to localization. Again, see
>Tom's updated issues list.
Xerox did not bring up these issues. They were brought up by
David Perkins, noted SNMP expert. We had asked him to comment
on our draft. Since he only send the comments back to me, I forwarded
them on to the JMP.
(His comments were sent to me at 1:00am on Friday of our Nashua meeting.
I did not see them in the AM to bring to the meeting. Either I was too
sleepy, or there was some delay in the mail systems.)