I'm happy to see that the PWG is asking IETF MIB experts for review
of its documents, and I have no objection to the technical changes
mentioned in your message. But I continue to find the apparent confusion
of PWG members about the relationship of PWG with IETF working groups,
quite disconcerting.
Keith
> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:07:32 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
> From: Ron Bergman <rbergma@dpc.com>
> To: WIJNEN@VNET.IBM.COM, dperkins@scruznet.com
> cc: jmp@pwg.org, Lloyd Young <lpyoung@lexmark.com>,
> Chris Wellens <chrisw@iwl.com>,
> Tom Hastings <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>,
> Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com>, moore@cs.utk.edu, scoya@ietf.org,
> Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no, rfc-editor@isi.edu
> Subject: Job Monitoring MIB, Request for Publication as an RFC
>
> Bert and David,
>
> The Printer Working Group has revised the Job Monitoring MIB draft,
> incorporating many of the changes that you have recommended. We believe
> that the documents are now ready to be published as RFCs. The latest
> drafts are available in the IETF Internet-Drafts directory as:
>
> draft-ietf-printmib-job-monitor-08.txt (Feb 19, 1999)
> draft-ietf-printmib-job-protomap-04.txt (Sept 21, 1998)
>
> During our previous communications, you had suggested that the MIB
> document be published as an Experimental RFC. The PWG does not object
> to either an Informational or an Experimental status. The companion
> Mapping Recommendations document should be an Informational RFC
> regardless.
>
> We are requesting that you review the updated document and provide a
> recommendation for publication. Following your review, the PWG will
> submit the documents to the appropriate IETF representative for
> publication.
>
> A summary of the document changes:
>
> 1. All REFERENCES clauses have been removed since they referred to
> sections in the specification that are not within the actual MIB.
> This change was recommended by Bert Wijnen and Keith McCloghrie.
>
> 2. Moved the definitions of the enumerations from the Textual Convention
> entries in the MIB to the sections preceding the MIB. This change
> was applied to JmAttributeTypeTC, JmJobSubmissionIDTypeTC,
> JmJobStateReasons1TC, JmJobStateReasons2TC, JmJobStateReasons3TC, and
> JmJobStateReasons4TC. This change was recommended by Keith
> McCloghrie.
>
> 3. Added the related data types as ASN.1 comments for each enumeration
> in JmAttributeTypeTC.
>
> 4. Replaced the use of "SHALL" with "is" for those cases where the
> statement is not a conformance requirement. This change was
> recommended by Bert Wijnen.
>
> 5. Clarified sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.7 to explain that the DEFVAL of 0
> for index attributes is different from the DEFVAL of -2 for
> JmAttributeValueAsInteger.
>
> 6. Clarified the relationships of the values of JmJobCollationTypeTC
> with the IPP "multiple-document-handling" attribute.
>
> 7. Clarified that the values of the mediumRequested(170) and
> mediumConsumed(171) attributes may be any of the IPP media values of
> media name, media size names, and input tray names.
>
> 8. Added two new attributes, mediumTypeConsumed(174) and
> mediumSizeConsumed(175) to JmAttributeTypeTC.
>
> 9. Changed "insure" to "ensure".
>
> 10. Fixed an incorrect reference in the jmAttributeEntry DESCRIPTION
> clause from jmJobTable to jmAttributeTable.
>
>
> The PWG would like to thank you for your time and patience in this matter.
>
>
> For the PWG,
>
> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.
> rbergma@dpc.com
> voice: 805 578 4421
> fax: 805 578 4005
>
>