I agree with Jay that we can make a lot of progress by immediately
discussing test results and possibly come up with additional test scenarios
and trying them.
If additional people attend, will they share in the cost of the facility?
1/2 :-)
Bob Pentecost
HP
----------
From: JK Martin[SMTP:jkm@underscore.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 1996 9:46 AM
To: lpyoung@lexmark.com
Cc: pwg@pwg.org
Subject: Re: PWG> Non-participants allowed at Interoperability Testing
Lloyd,
> Bill,
> I do not have a good answer about will kibitzers be allowed at the
> interoperability testing yet.
I sincerely hope that participants of the PWG are allowed
to be present at the testing, even if they are not involved
in testing of their own products.
We need to lock down the semantics and guidelines for alert table
handling as quickly as possible, as this remains (IMHO) the single
largest impediment to interoperability at this time with the Printer
MIB. By allowing non-participating PWG members to be present, we
should be able to immediately engage in meaningful discussions about
these guidelines while the topic is freshest on our minds.
If space is a problem at Stardust Labs, then perhaps we should set
things up so that the first N people can sign up to attend (ala RSVP).
That way, those folks who are keenly interested in staying on top of
this testing (such as Bill Wagner) have a chance of attending.
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03015-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
From: Lloyd Young[SMTP:lpyoung@lexmark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 1996 9:31 AM
To: pwg%pwg.org
Subject: PWG> Non-participants allowed at Interoperability Testing
Bill,
I do not have a good answer about will kibitzers be allowed at the
interoperability testing yet. First, what I do know is that there
is room for 40 people at Stardust Labs. Because I do not know how many
people will be attending that are participating, I don't know how much
room will be left for non-participants. Secondarily, the IETF requires
that the results of the interoperability testing by specific vendor
not be made publicly available. Therefore they frown on non-participants
being present at the testing because they think the likelihood of the
results being "leaked" increases. In fact, the IETF feels so strongly
about the interoperability testing results not being made publicly
available that all of the people present at the interoperability
testing may have to sign some form of a brief nondisclosure
agreement that states that they will not disclose the specific
results by vendor of the interoperability testing. Chris and I
are trying to get the details of the nondisclosure agreement
nailed down so there is some review time before the testing.
Regards,
Lloyd
lpyoung@lexmark.com
To: Lloyd Young, pwg%pwg.org @ interlock.lexmark.com ("pwg%pwg.org") @ SMTP
cc:
From: bwagner%digprod.com @ interlock.lexmark.com (Bill Wagner) @ SMTP
Date: 11/22/96 07:27:44 PM
Subject: Re: Printer MIB Testing and PWG Meeting Alternatives
Lloyd,
Question related to the proposed schedule change. Is it correct that
the interoperability tests are just for those directly participating
(and paying the fee) in the test? Or are kibitzers (sp?) allowed as at
the Portland prebakeoff?
Thanks
Bill Wagner, DPI, Division of Osicom Technologies