Speaking as an individual (although Xerox is my client, I wouldn't
speculate on their position as a Printer vendor), I think it's
BETTER to move the Printer MIB v2 forward as a Proposed standard,
and avoid dependencies on the status of HR MIB (old RFC 1514).
Note that the IETF has NEVER published any MIB as an Informational
RFC, so it remains to be seen if the IESG would accept that path
for the PWG Job Mon MIB.
In addition, future MIBs (as well as current ones) can only be
published as 'Proposed Standard' by emanating from a chartered
IETF working group and being accepted for the (whole) 'standards
track' by the IESG. Even 'Experimental' status is reserved for
output from chartered IETF working groups.
Speaking as an individual, I think the PWG should consider becoming
a 'free-standing' standards organization (for the Job Mon MIB).
Note also that under the latest I-D of Harald's IETF Character
Set and Languages Policy (posted recently), the Printer MIB v2
cannot remain on the 'standards track' without specifying the
'charset' AND 'language' of ALL text objects or obtaining a
'BCP9' waiver (you got me what that means) from the IESG.
I've asked Harald in a recent private note how soon he expects
adoption of the IETF Character Set and Languages Policy,
because it has significant impact on Printer MIB, Job Mon MIB,
and IPP. When he gets down to that note in his mail, I'll
forward the answer to the PWG PMP list (w/ Harald's permission,
To read Harald's draft policy go to
'ftp.ds.internic.net' and get
It's only 8 pages, and well-written.
- Ira McDonald (outside consultant at Xerox)
High North Inc