I would think that if it's really that hard to put down into words the
the problems being solved (and what's required to solve these
problems), then the resulting work product is probably not worth
of being standardized in the first place.
In the case of the PortMon MIB it should be pretty easy to
list what the problem is with respect to the configuration of a network
printer
port on the client side and the installation of an appropriate printer
driver, and
to create a bulleted list of what needs to be part of the MIB to enable
this.
In the case of the Counter Spec. it should also be fairly straightforward
to
create a couple of paragraphs explaining what needs to be counted and
why as far as the need for billing/fleet management metrics.
I don't see this as a failure of the Process 2.0 since this was required
in the
original PWG Process document, I see it more as "our" failure to follow
it.
JT
"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>
Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org
05/23/2005 03:19 PM
To: "'pwg at pwg.org'" <pwg at pwg.org>
cc:
Subject: PWG> SC topic - no requirements in Counter Spec or Port MIB
Hi,
A topic for this Thursday's PWG Steering Committee:
Both the PWG Imaging System Counters spec and the PWG
Port Monitor MIB do _not_ have an internal requirements
section. Without an explicit variance from the PWG SC,
neither of these documents can enter Formal Approval
(the PWG Process/2.0 has no loopholes here).
On the other hand, the PWG Imaging Counter MIB _does_
have an internal requirements section.
Mea culpa - I should have realized this problem with
both specs a long time back, but the question is, what
to do?
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/pwg/attachments/20050523/dbb90f90/attachment-0001.html