Unfortunately, I missed getting a copy of the summary sheet that Genoa
apparently passed out at the last meeting. But I did hear the
representative say that he would be issuing a report on the detailed
findings of his test. Like Jay, I am very anxious to receive this
report. I'm also curious if such a report would agree with some of
Jay's observations or not. What do the other vendors think? Although
Jay might not have been present to hear them, the few statements that I
heard from Genoa gave me the impression that there was a big variance on
the interpretation and method of reporting three specific HR MIB
objects. Perhaps these items are not very critical, but IMHO, this
doesn't yet sound like a successful interoperability event worthy of
demonstrating to the world.
Lee Farrell
CIS
>----------
>From: Binnur Al-Kazily[SMTP:binnur@hpb15650.boi.hp.com]
>Sent: Monday, August 5, 1996 11:19 AM
>To: 'pwg@pwg.org'
>Subject: Re: Was the PWG Bake-Off a Success or Failure?
>
>
>I have a different view of the bake-off that took place in Portland
>during the July PWG meeting. I had few objectives for the bake-off:
>
>1. dry-run for the possible Interop '96 bake-off.
>2. interoperability testing of the Printer MIB implementations that
>shows up.
>
>In order to achieve the objective #1, it was necessary to have a
>free-running show, kinda duplicating a Interop. However, in order to
>organize the environment somewhat, it was also necessary for each
>vendor to summarize what they brought with them, and what they were
>planning on showing.. I think we were definitely able to duplicate the
>same hectic environment as a show would have. But, where we have failed
>was gathering information from each vendor regarding to their sw and hw
>implementations. Most of us were busy trying to get the printers up and
>running, and others were sitting in groups having conversations.. I
>think it is hard to organize this type of activity as a dry-run for a
>show.. However, identifying our objectives in advance would help to
>organize the nature of the bake-off..
>
>Unlike Jay, I feel we have achieved the #2 objective during the
>bake-off.. This is more a question of, is the glass half full or half
>empty.. This was the first time all the vendors got together and
>checked their interoperability implementations.. It is great to see the
>reports coming back, and also to know that we could most likely fix
>these problems for the future just by clarifying few areas in the MIB
>(ok.. they are the most important areas, but still.. It is easy to do,
>now that we know what is wrong..) However, doing a more formal
>interoperability testing in the future would be more beneficial, as
>well..
>
>Overall, was the bake-off a success?? In my mind, anything that I learn
>from is a success, even if I fail at it!! What do you think, is the
>glass half-full, or half-empty?? Important thing for us is to learn
>from it, and document it, so we don't make the same mistake twice..
>
> ---
>Binnur Al-Kazily Hewlett-Packard Company Internet Solutions Operation
>binnur@boi.hp.com (208)396-6372 KB7WYD DoD #2010
>