PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Printer MIB - what to do?

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Printer MIB - what to do?

Re: PMP> Printer MIB - what to do?

Stuart Rowley (Stuart.Rowley@kyocera.com)
Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:47:37 -0800

Lloyd,

I vote for Option 4. I want a new print MIB rfc now AND I want the HR MIB
changes. The problem is that while your options may be the only realistic ones,
none of them are very appealing. I can't make an intelligent decision on this
unless I get some kind of at least rough estimate on the timeframe for a new HR
MIB rfc.

I feel like someone who has been camped out for weeks waiting for tickets to go
on sale (without knowing exactly when they are going on sale). I don't want to
give up and go home an hour before the tickets go on sale, but then again maybe
I'll be dead and gone before they ever go on sale.

Stuart

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Rowley Kyocera Technology Development, Inc.
Network Product Dev. Mgr. 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd. #330
Printer Division Lafayette, CA 94549
stuart.rowley@kyocera.com 925 299-7206 Fax: 925 299-2489
------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: PMP> Printer MIB - what to do?
Author: INTERNET:lpyoung@lexmark.com at CSERVE
Date: 11/18/98 6:28 PM

I have heard from Don and Harry that there was a group opinion
stated at the Tucson PWG meeting last week that a RFC number for the
Printer MIB was desired ASAP. I wanted to state a couple of things
and then get down to the business at hand. First, I had heard the
same thing from Don after the Savannah meeting in September and put
out an email attempting to gather a consensus and only three people
responded with no consensus on how we should proceed. I am going
to assume that my email dated September 8th entitled Possible
Change in direction for the Printer MIB was not clear enough and
attempt to gather a consensus again on how we should proceed.
Secondly, if you cast a vote at the face to face PWG meeting, you
still need to state your opinion on the mailing list so we can
reach a consensus with the entire working group and not just the
ones that attended the face to face meeting.

If a RFC number is desired for the Printer MIB ASAP then the only
option that I know is to back out the changes to
hrPrinterDetectedErrorState that were made in the latest Host
Resources MIB Internet Draft and align the new Printer MIB with the
HR MIB published as RFC1514. In other words if we want to pick up
the additional bit definitions for hrPrinterDetectedErrorState then
we need to continue to wait for the new Host Resources MIB to get a
new RFC number.

Therefore I think we have three options available to us:
1. Re-align the new Printer MIB with RFC1514 and submit the new Printer
MIB as Proposed. (Fastest path to RFC, however this means removing
the changes to hrPrinterDetectedErrorState.)
2. Wait for the new Host Resources MIB to get an RFC number and
submit the new Printer MIB (with the new hrPrinterDetectedErrorState)
as Proposed.
3. Wait for the new Host Resources MIB to get an RFC number and
submit the new Printer MIB (with the new hrPrinterDetectedErrorState)
as Draft.

Choosing Option 1 is certainly the fastest path to RFC publication.
We would give up some function improvement with the new
hrPrinterDetectedErrorState but we would still gain all of the other
improvements that have been made in the new Printer MIB.

If Option 1 is not acceptable then there is Option 2 or 3. While I listed
Option 2, it has any advantage over Option 3. In fact our Area Directors
have told us that Option 3 would be faster than Option 2.

Therefore with all of this, we as a working group need to decide if the
hrPrinterDetectedErrorState changes are important enough to continue to
wait on the new HR MIB.

If anyone else thinks there is another option, I would like to hear
their ideas.

One other side item - if you feel that getting the Printer MIB to Draft
Standard is extremely important then you should vote for Option 3. For
several reasons if the working group chooses Option 1, it will be difficult
to move the Printer MIB to Draft in the future.

Again so everyone understands, I am requesting a vote for Option 1, Option
2 or Option 3 (at least until someone suggests another option).

Regards,
Lloyd

------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd Young Lexmark International, Inc.
Senior Program Manager Dept. C08L/Bldg. 035-3
Strategic Alliances 740 New Circle Road NW
internet: lpyoung@lexmark.com Lexington, KY 40550
Phone: (606) 232-5150 Fax: (606) 232-6740