PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Revised proposal on definition of OCTET STRING to allow

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Revised proposal on definition of OCTET STRING to allow

Re: PMP> Revised proposal on definition of OCTET STRING to allow

JK Martin (
Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:18:54 -0400 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more with Dave Kellerman's comments. This whole thread
of discussion is starting to sound a bit like this:

"Dad, will you buy me the Mega Construction Kit toy?"

"Sorry, but we don't have the money this week. We talked about the
family budget and how tight we are right now. How about next week?"

"But I really want it!"

"C'mon now, we talked about this before, and it's just not possible
right now. I'm not saying you shouldn't have it; it's just that we
can't afford it right now."

"But I *really* want it! It's just want I need right now."

"I know, I know. And I want you to have it, too. Your Uncle Fred
works for the toy industry, and he says it's a great toy, but given
the cost, you really need to make sure you can afford it first."

"But I REALLY, REALLY want it!!! All my friends say I shouldn't be
without it!"

"Sorry, but NOT RIGHT NOW."

"Alright, Dad, you obviously aren't interested in my personal development.
Studies have shown that when a child is deprived of mentally-challenging
toys, the child tends to grow into a menace to society. US News & World
Report published an poignant article this week on this very topic. And
The New England Journal of Medicine had an article last month that says
even more. Let me read you the entire article..."

[...2 hours pass...]

"So, Dad, what do you think? Great idea, huh?"

"In the time since you first asked me, we haven't gotten any more
money for the family budget, so sorry. I must say NO. And please
don't ask again. I told you we could probably buy it NEXT week,
but not THIS week. Please don't ask again."

"But Dad! Don't be STUPID! You should know better than that!!
What are all the other fathers going to think of you?? They're
going to think you're not interested at all in child development!"

"Sorry, but that trick won't work. I said NO."

"Perhaps you haven't read the Encyclopedia Britannica's discourse
on this subject. Here, let me read it to you..."

[...father starts looking for a small, blunt instrument...]

As Dave says, some of us are just plain growing WEARY of this topic,
given it's history.

To date, the only folks who have publicly stated support for all of
this has been those participants from Xerox. Despite the "research"
about how some implementations behave, the people who developed those
implementations have not said a WORD on this mailing list in support
of the proposal...and those very people are the ones who said "No"
to the proposal some time ago.

When does "No" mean NO, anyway??


----- Begin Included Message -----

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 17:34:49 PST
Subject: Re: PMP> Revised proposal on definition of OCTET STRING to allow
superset of ASCII

> I have heard no objects to the main thrust of my suggestion
> to allow additional characters in code positions 128-255
> for objects of syntax OCTET STRING, as long as code positions
> 32-126 remained US-ASCII. The discussion has been about
> prtChannelInformation (which I have removed from this proposal).
> There has been no objections to changing the new object:
> prtGeneralPrinterName from DisplayString to OCTET STRING either.
> I assume that silence means acceptance on the main thrust
> of the proposal????

Tom, I'm sorry, but I just don't think in this case you can fudge "no
answer" to mean "I agree" -- "not at home" or "sick of the topic" are at
least as likely. What seems apparent (to me at least) is that this
topic isn't getting the scrutiny it needs for comfort.

After I talked with you this morning, I also talked with Chris Wellens
(about the prtChannelInformation issues). She and Lloyd are trying to
tie off the "last" of the MIB issues on a very tight schedule (24 hours
if I understood correctly).

I also (1) went back and read Chris's e-mail concerning localization,
and (2) read over RFC 2130 and the SYSAPPL MIB draft. And I think what
Chris said in her note is to the point -- that the localization issue
goes beyond the Printer MIB, that a good solution will have a broader
scope than the Printer MIB, and there is good reason to believe that
such a solution will be forthcoming. (My paraphrase, Chris, hope it's

I think right now is a very good time to NOT try to fix the unresolved
localization issues. And I'm concerned the Printer Working Group is NOT
a very good forum for trying to resolve them. (Witness, for instance,
the lack of involvement in the topic.) Now that leaves the MIB with
some loose ends -- deficiencies or problems, some would say. (Hey, I'm
even thinking of some changes I'd make to prtChannelInformation if I had
it to do over again!)

I'm prepared to turn a blind eye to the problems in the short term, let
Chris and Lloyd meet their deadline, and work on fixing them in the
longer term. And it's my guess that this is closer to the consensus (of
the silent members of the group ;-) than concurrence with your

:: David Kellerman Northlake Software 503-228-3383
:: Portland, Oregon fax 503-228-5662

----- End Included Message -----