In general, the PWG places value on having it's work chartered by the
IETF (when appropriate), and has placed a lot of emphasis on following
IETF recommendations. The job MIB is a case in point. Nonetheless, we'r=
e
trying, now, to acclimate to your latest recommendations that the Job M=
IB
remain "Informational", and that, from the IETF perspective, is not a
"Good Thing" (because it facilitates both client and administrative acc=
ess
via SNMP).
Your recommendation to maintain the Job MIB under PWG control and
clarification of what that means (ability to rev the specification
without consulting the IETF) is probably one that we should see value
in and take advantage of.
Again, Thanks.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
hta@dale.uninett.no on 11/08/97 03:33:43 PM
Please respond to hta@dale.uninett.no @ internet
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@ibmus
cc: jmp@pwg.org @ internet, rbergma@dpc.com @ internet, lpyoung@lexmark=
.com @
internet, rturner@sharplabs.com @ internet, chrisw@iwl.com @ internet
Subject: Re: Job MIB Standard direction
Harry,
The statement "under PWG control" means that if the PWG claims that
the Job MIB version 2 is defined like this-and-this, the IETF won't
protest.
If the PWG were to do the same thing with a standards-track document,
the IETF will insist that it ain't so until it's been approved
by the IETF process.
We've had several attempts at groups saying that they're "defining
the next version of standard XXX", while not consulting the IETF.
That is WRONG.
Harald A
=