> Gail wrote:
> >Was interoperability really shown? Given the variance is the results, I
> >definately question your statement. Jay, as one of those application
> >management vendors, what do you think?
> Interoperability - YES. Perfection - NO. I don't think we can continue
> this discussion (or perhaps the evaluation of results) until we define
> our interoperability targets.
Actually, we already defined this. The following paragraphs
titled "PURPOSE" and "GOALS" are taken from the Printer MIB Test
Plan that was submitted three times to the mailing list and
distributed at the interoperability test itself, and sent to our
IETF Area Director (the person Lloyd and I report to as co-chairs).
Note that "interoperability" for purposes of Draft Standard is
not defined the way you might think (See section 4.1.2 at
We are testing that every single one of the 179 MIB objects are
implemented in at least two printers, and that the implementations are
consistent among all the printers. This is the IETF requirement to
advance to Draft Standard.
We are *NOT* testing conformance, compliance, boundary conditions
(except indirectly), MIB II and its instrumentation, performance, data
representation (except for inconsistencies among implementations),
The outcome of this testing should be an independent,
unbiased report that states the results of all tests for
each coded printer (stripped of manufacturer identity).
The report should have a list of recommendations of corrections,
clarifications, and resolutions derived from the three days of
testing. The Printer MIB Working Group must take corrective action
to incorporate these recommendations, as appropriate into the RFC.
--- Note that the group is working through the corrections, clarifications, etc. as defined in GOALS above.