PMP Mail Archive: PMP> JMP> RFC 2790 - Host Resources MIB

PMP Mail Archive: PMP> JMP> RFC 2790 - Host Resources MIB

PMP> JMP> RFC 2790 - Host Resources MIB v2 - Let's move Printer MIB v2

From: Ron Bergman (
Date: Wed Mar 22 2000 - 11:43:17 EST

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "RE: PMP> JMP> RFC 2790 - Host Resources MIB v2 - Let's move Print er MIB v2"


    We are now in the "hot seat" to get this document completed!

    Other than a couple of editorial corrections, the only real
    open issue is the name changes. I have not received any
    response from Tom regarding the impact to Xerox, so I can
    only assume that this is not an issue. (We had one vote
    for and one vote against from Xerox.)

    Ira stated that Sharp was against the new names, but I have
    no statement that it actually breaks an implementation.
    Since the current MIB draft was completed over three years
    ago and the editor during the draft development was
    employed by Sharp, it it hard to believe that these changes
    would break an implementation by Sharp!

    I agree that the name changes should not have been made,
    especially the textual conventions. But I have revised
    my implementations and going back would break my code!
    Actually, if there was a strong consensus, I am willing
    to again change my code.

    I don't see any consensus, and for this issue to surface
    three years after the draft was completed, makes it seem
    more like a religious issue than a real technical problem.
    The weak response on this subject indicates that the
    majority of WPG members don't care.

    As chairman of this project, I am closing this issue. We
    must move forward and get this document published.

    As to incorporation of the Finisher MIB, this will surely
    cause a major problem with the IETF. We are going to
    have enough to worry about due to the changing Area
    Director. (My real concern with the Finisher MIB is the
    attribute mechanism and the negative response it received
    in the Job MIB.)

    When do you estimate the editing changes can be incorporated
    and the document submitted as an Internet-Draft? I can
    assist in any editing changes if necessary.

            Ron Bergman
            Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions

    -- Original message from Ira
            Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:58:42 -0800

    Hi folks,

    RFC 2790 - Host Resources MIB v2 (March 2000)
    - IETF Draft Standard status

    This was posted last week (14 March 2000) but got past
    me until it showed up in the RFC Index today.

    So now it's time to get on with Printer MIB v2.

    I urge that we fold the text of Finisher MIB into the
    Printer MIB v2 text (after all it completes the model
    in original Printer MIB, RFC 1759, March 1995) and
    NOT publish Finisher MIB as a separate RFC.

    I also urge that we press on as quickly as possible
    with publishing a definitive text for Printer MIB v2
    (with the approved additions from July 1999 for new
    generic alerts and 'chIPP' specification) and move it
    to PMP WG last call and send it onward for IESG last
    call. More than one vendor has already shipped a
    product with Printer MIB v2 new objects implemented.

    Remember that since the bar is now *very* high for
    advancement to Draft Standard, the Printer MIB v2
    MUST be published at Proposed Standard and convincing
    proof of interoperable implementations of EVERY object
    and object group must be presented to the IESG and
    publicly posted before we can request movement to
    Draft Standard status.

    - Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp Labs America
      High North Inc

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 22 2000 - 11:39:48 EST