searching for. It was originally part of a PMP topic, which is why I ha=
d
difficulty back referencing.
> With regard to the Job MIB, it seems clear that:
>
> - The IETF has no consensus position that it is a Good Thing to deplo=
y
> MIBs as a means of users' access to information (as opposed to an
> administrator's access). In particular, the access control models
> currently being defined in the SNMPv3 group are not based on the id=
ea
> that all users need MIB access; we do not want to bring this idea i=
nto
> that process, for fear of delaying it further.
>
> - The IETF has consensus that there is no need for all MIBs to be
> Internet standards. Informational MIBs, or MIBs developed by other
> organizations, are Good Things; the IETF can sometimes assist in th=
eir
> reviews, without necessarily taking responsibility.
>
> - Given the two positions above, we think that it's better for the
> Job MIB to be submitted to the IETF as an external document and giv=
en
> Informational status as a protocol under PWG control.
In Boulder, we discussed the fact that Experimental may carry more "wei=
ght"
than Informational. In Boulder, we felt we only had 2 weeks to resolve =
this,
which is why I brought it up. If we go strictly the Informational route=
,
we will register the Job MIB under the new PWG enterprise OID.
Another thing I think this decision will force that we are really not
addressing is the last bit of Harald's statement "as a protocol under =
PWG
control" Do we know exactly what this means?
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
=