Randy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Bergman [SMTP:rbergma@dpc.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 7:03 PM
> To: don@lexmark.com
> Cc: pwg@pwg.org
> 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
> have
> been presented on the mailing list that require a short (no more than
> an
> 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
> the
> 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.
> This
> 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
> the
> 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
> and
> 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
> Harry
> 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
> purpose
> at the next meeting.
>
>
> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.
>