Jay,
This discussion came up during the presentation of the IPP Model that
I was leading.
I made the comment that over that last few months, the IPP working group has
been moving to align with the Printer MIB and the Job Monitoring MIB as
much as possible. I said that this was a good thing for the group to do.
However, this brought on "much" discussion from many of what I would call
the "non-IPP-specific IETF players".
The most vocal of which was Keith Moore stating very emphatically that the
proposal for including the Job Monitoring MIB in printmib working group's
charter had been reviewed by the IESG and rejected. Therefore, there
was no Job MIB to align with. Many of the more active PWG members in the
room (myself, Randy, Carl-Uno, Steve Z., Lee F.) all seemed surprised by the
statement. Several, including myself, pointed out the mailing list,
presentations
at Memphis and the expectation among the working group members that it had
been chartered and that the draft was nearing completion. This information
did not make Keith rethink the IESG decision.
Sounds like from Chirs Wellen's email, she is seeking clarification.
Scott I.
>>> JK Martin <jkm at underscore.com> 08/12/97 09:29PM >>>
This snippet comes from Randy Turner's recent IPP minutes
from the IETF plenary last week:
One note about the job MIB. Keith Moore, our area director for
applications, noted that there is no formal IETF working group
chartered for the Job MIB effort. Further, there may be problems
with IPP achieving "proposed" status if IPP documents reference
such other documents. He reiterated that the Printer Working
Group had submitted an extension to the Printer MIB working
group's charter to include the Job MIB, but that the request
was rejected by the IESG, so there may be a problem here.
I have not yet spoken with Randy about exactly what went on,
but perhaps someone else (maybe the PMP chairpersons) can
comment on this?
...jay