PMP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: PMP> IETF concerns regarding the Printer MIB draft?

PMP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: PMP> IETF concerns regarding the Printer MIB draft?

Re: IPP> Re: PMP> IETF concerns regarding the Printer MIB draft?
Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:46:58 +0200

Oops control, as usual....

The Applications Area Directors do not think that the Printer MIB is

The Apps ADs think that one particular decision was mistaken:
To establish a register of print languages (the prtInterpreterLangFamily)
and not to register those as MIME types.

We also have doubts about the use of integers rather than names for
character sets (the CodedCharSet textual convention), but since this
is just 2 pointers into the same registry, and the IANA appears to be
maintaining this double registry, it is less harmful overall.

We think the Right Thing is that the IPP group or the PrinterMIB group
should register all the currently unregistered printer formats as MIME
types, and that the IPP group should use the MIME types to indicate the
content of their MIME objects.

With regard to the Job MIB, it seems clear that:

- The IETF has no consensus position that it is a Good Thing to deploy
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 idea
that all users need MIB access; we do not want to bring this idea into
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 their
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 given
Informational status as a protocol under PWG control.

There was some unfortunate fumbling of balls in the handover of this
group from the NM area to the Apps area, where the status of this request
for revised charter seemed to have been lost; I had hoped that we had
agreement on the positions above, but it seems that we didn't.

(this discussion should be moved to the Printer MIB list only, but since
it seems I've fallen off it, please keep me in the CC line....)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Apps AD