Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
owner-pwg@pwg.org on 01/06/98 03:13:54 PM
Please respond to owner-pwg@pwg.org @ internet
To: don@lexmark.com @ internet
cc: pwg@pwg.org @ internet
Subject: PWG> Suggestion for Project Status Updates
Don,
Tom Hastings and I had a discussion this morning concerning how to keep=
the group informed on the status of projects that do not have (or
require) a large block of meeting time allocated. Also, issues may hav=
e
been presented on the mailing list that require a short (no more than a=
n
hour) discussion on these same projects.
For example, the Printer MIB update has entered the black hole of the
IETF. It would be nice to have a short report at each meeting as to th=
e
progress, or lack of, regarding the Printer MIB and the big road block
that is sometimes known as the Host Resources MIB. Likewise, the Job
Monitoring MIB is also at the point where only a short status
presentation is necessary. The same situation will be likely be
repeated, as projects such as IPP, are submitted to the IETF.
One solution would be to allocate a block of time, of no more than two
hours (or some reasonable time limit), as a "PWG General" meeting. Thi=
s
time could also be used to discuss future meeting plans, proposed new
projects, as well as the status of projects in the above category. (A
project status report would not require the attendance of the project
chairman. The chairman would, however, be responsible for providing th=
e
report to a designated representative.)
Tom has also suggested that a regular block of time (maybe 1 to 2 hours=
)
be allocated to each project in this category to discuss status and any=
other issues that may have occurred just prior to the meeting. (IMHO
this could result in too much time allocated for this purpose. But the=
suggestion should be considered.)
I propose that we allocate a two hour block for this purpose in Maui an=
d
propose the following agenda with some estimated times;
1. March meeting details and future meetings. (15 minutes)
2. Current status of the Printer MIB and the HR MIB. Can we add the=
additional bit to hrPrinterDetectedErrorState as proposed by Harr=
y
Lewis? (30 minutes)
3. Status report on the Job Monitoring MIB and the Job MIB, Job
Submission Protocol Mapping Document. (15 minutes)
4. Proposal for Job Monitoring MIB traps. Do we want to pursue?
(50 minutes)
5. Discussion, was this two hours useful and should we continue?
(10 minutes)
Does this seem reasonable and is there a slot available for this purpos=
e
at the next meeting.
Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.
=