The first change is in regards to the chair for a IETF working group. The chair
is now
appointed by the IETF Area Director not by the working group. The first
requirement of
the chair is that they have IETF experience. Secondarily, the person needs to
have a
track record with the IETF of achieving a schedule. Next is a technical
knowledge of the
subject matter. Because I do not have any experience with the IETF, I am not
acceptable
to serve as the chair of a new Printer MIB IETF working group. Deidre has s
omeone who
has agreed in principle to serve in this capacity. Therefore it would appear
that I may
have the distinction of serving the shortest period of time as the PMP chair.
It is
possible to have a co-chair if the chair decides that it would be beneficial.
Before I
publish the name of the person over the mailing list, I plan on talking to them
to
see how they would like to proceed. I will say that in my opinion the person
that
Deidre has in mind would be acceptable to this illustrious group.
The editor of the Printer MIB must agree to serve until the MIB is completed.
The period
of time that this normally takes according to Deidre is from 6 to 9 months
after submitting
the MIB to the IETF. Randy - any comment? The requirements of an editor are:
1. They can produce documents on time.
2. Take group consensus on decisions even if different from their own opinion.
3. Familiar with MIB process and language.
Regarding selecting an advisor for the working group, if the person that Deidre
wants for
the chair accepts then Deidre would consider letting that person serve as
advisor also.
This is also contingent upon this person being willing to serve in both
capacities.
We also talked about the sample vendor implementation report that we need to
fill out
to proceed. The report would appear to be simple to do. It is merely a table
where the
columns headings are the tables, scalar objects, and traps and the row headings
are
the vendors that have implemented RFC 1759. We then put "X"'s in the columns
where the
vendor has implemented the object for that column. Deidre looks to see that a
majority of
vendors have implemented each object. If not, she will question whether an obj
ect is
required.
Deidre also stated that in order for our MIB to proceed to a draft standard it
must not
have significant changes over the proposed standard. When I asked what
significant meant
we agreed that significant meant 50% change or more.
I asked Deidre about what we should do about the Host Resources MIB. She said
that this
is something that we could work out in the future but that she did not think we
should
take over the work of the Host Resources MIB. She would like to know how much
of this MIB
we use in our MIB before deciding what to do.
Last but not least, our new MIB must be v2 compliant. According to Deidre there
is no
grandfather clause that we might be able to squeeze some things in under. Based
on this,
we need to know what changes are required in our current MIB to bring it up to
a v2
compliant level.
Lloyd Young Phone: (606) 232-5150
Lexmark International Inc. Fax: (606) 232-6740
740 New Circle Road NW internet: lpyoung@lexmark.com
Lexington, KY 40511