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

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

Re: IPP> Re: PMP> IETF concerns regarding the Printer MIB dr

Harry Lewis (
Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:01:45 -0400

Harald - thank you for clarifying the IESG Printer and Job MIB issues
and sharing this with the appropriate PWG projects which make up the
majority of concerned parties. This is very helpful!

My interpretation is that you are resigned to double registration at
this point. I agree, and view double registration (integers and text)
of PDLs and coded character sets as a natural result of Evolution and
Overlap of application and management standards .

Evolution - MIME was pretty fresh when the Printer MIB was laying down
it's definitions and, while discussed, the connection between MIME and
print jobs was not so obvious then.

Overlap - like it or not, the Printer MIB *is* used by some end-user
applications to determine device configuration and capabilities and
IPP will be involved in "managing" print jobs. This unacknowledged
overlap may have contributed to some of our most difficult discussion
during development of IPP which related to the use of text strings vs.

It would be hard to avoid double registration for both reasons.

AS FOR THE Job MIB, you have listed some very reasonable points which
somewhat change the notion which has carried the JMP team - that of
creating an Internet Standard - but do not necessarily undermine or
resist the desire to have a standard Job MIB within the printer industry
which is also an informational RFC. I'd like to hear more comment on
this from the Chair and other members of the JMP and IPP.

I have two main concerns...

1. First, the IESG may not understand the role the Job MIB plays in the
administration and accounting of print jobs. Thus, I fear your statement...

>- 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.

...may be applied to the Job MIB with more weight than is actually warranted.

2. Second, I'm concerned about the effect on IPP if the Job MIB is
treated as informational by the IESG. It should be viewed as a Good Thing
to facilitate harmony between standards - especially those routed within
a particular industry and standards organization. Folks in the printer
industry have been active in defining and deploying solutions based on
Internet Standards, and I don't think we're unique in potentially having
overloaded some. As application and management standards evolve, it is
reasonable for controlling bodies, like the IETF, to project a clearer
picture of the purpose and relationship between standards. But, this
needs to be done in an atmosphere which acknowledges and, if possible,
accommodates this evolution and the resulting current state of affairs.

Thanks, again, for helping disseminate an accurate view of the IEGS's
stance on these issues.

Harry Lewis