Sorry not to have made the proposal for the new version group sooner, but as
editor of the IPP Model document, I have had my hands full getting that out
by the deadline of last Wednesday.
We seem to have forgotten the other object in this new group that we agreed
to at the meeting, which is very useful to applications:
A BITS vector that indicates which attributes have been implemented. Then
an application can know whether to ever expect certain attributes to appear
or not.
I agree that we don't want to turn the JMP MIB into a research project.
On the other hand, our developers had previously suggested just such a BITS
vector, so I was very supportive of the proposal when it was brought up at
the Tucson meeting.
I'll make the proposal today.
Tom
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Bergman [mailto:rbergma at dpc.com]
>Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 08:08
>To: jmp at pwg.org>Subject: JMP> Object to Indicate MIB Revision
>>>An additional object for the Job MIB, that would indicate the
>version of
>the MIB implemented, was discussed at the Tucson meeting. Now
>two weeks
>later there has not been a formal proposal submitted to the mail list.
>>Upon further pondering of the proposal, I have concluded that this
>additional object would have marginal value. (No other MIB, that I am
>aware of, includes such an object.)
>>I would like to get this project back on track and submit the updated
>document to the IESG as soon as possible. I do not want this effort to
>turn into a long term research project.
>>I suggest that the document be frozen as presented in Tucson
>and the last
>call start immediately.
>>Comments?
>>> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.
>>