Tom. This is a much better proposal. I only have one concern.
The System Group was supposed to enable applications to determine whether
or not the (optional) mirror table was supported. Perhaps 1.0 should just
be the first PWG standard Job MIB (as agreed initially) and the (new)
internal version (basis for next external) should have the mirror table and
Systems Group.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
harryl at us.ibm.com
"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com> on 01/07/99 07:35:31 PM
To: jmp <jmp at pwg.org>
cc: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM, Ron Bergman <rbergma at dpc.com>
Subject: RE: JMP> Ballot on Xerox Job MIB comments
Harry,
I think that we (Xerox) can agree to forwarding the JMP MIB to the IETF now
with the System Group being entirely removed as you and Ron have suggested.
We can also agree that we should make the second EXTERNALLY published
version of the MIB AFTER an interoperability test and any updates needed
from the interpretability test, as you proposed. Currently, the
interoperability test is anticipated to be some time next summer.
However, we need to be able to build something with the System Group in it
NOW, rather than waiting until after the interoperability test (next
summer). So could we also produce NOW an INTERNAL PWG working draft with
version 2.0 that does have the MANDATORY System Group in it? This internal
PWG working draft would NOT be forwarded to the IETF for publication as an
Information RFC until after the interoperability test and any updates that
the interoperability tests show were added.
Thus the interoperability test would be for both version 1.0 products
without the System Group and for version 2.0 products with the MANDATORY
System Group. It is straightforward for any testing client software to
tell
the difference between the two by just querying the System Group and
getting
back no such object or not.
So for process as a result of the PWG Last Call, after Maui I would forward
the current JMP MIB document with the OPTIONAL Mirror Table but without the
System Group to the IETF as an Internet-Draft. Ron prefers that we call it
1.0 (with a January 1999 date), rather than 1.3 so that we don't confuse
the
IETF. They have only seen the 1.0 spec from February 1998. If it looks
ok,
Ron will then request the RFC Editor to publish it as an Informational RFC.
Secondly, next month I would take the current 1.3 version with the
MANDATORY
System Group and rename it to be version 2.0. Then implementers that want
to can implement it for the Interoperability Tests. However, it would NOT
be forwarded to the IETF until after the interoperability test.
Implementers at the interoperability test could bring 1.0 or 2.0 conformant
products.
If new attributes are proposed and agreed to, I can add them to both the
1.0
and 2.0 specs until we make version 2.0 an EXTERNAL spec as published by
the
IETF and an Informational RFC. After that we only need to keep maintaining
the 2.0 spec.
How does that sound?
Thanks,
Tom
>-----Original Message-----
>From: harryl at us.ibm.com [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 10:56
>To: jmp at pwg.org>Subject: RE: JMP> Ballot on Xerox Job MIB comments
>>>>>A few days ago, I stated my lack of support in Ron's ballot request...
>>>I am requesting a formal ballot regarding the recent request
>>from Xerox to expand the object jmSystemAttributeSupport to
>three objects.
>>I should elaborate that I do not object to the particular
>jmSystemAttributeSupport changes proposed by Xerox but to the
>entire notion
>of submitting an updated version of the Job MIB to the IETF if
>that version
>has new mandatory objects which were not part of the agreed
>PWG standard,
>closed months ago, and which is the basis of all prototypes and
>implementations thus far.
>>The existing PWG Job MIB standard (v1) has been intended for
>submission to
>the IETF for consideration as an RFC. (It has been debated whether this
>would
>be standards track with the Printer MIB, Informational,
>Experimental etc...
>but, nonetheless, the Job MIB would be submitted).
>>Recently, there have been proposals, resulting from
>prototypes, which have
>been discussed and agreed to be improvements. I agreed to the
>addition of
>an optional "mirror table" as part of the IETF submission
>because it was
>optional. Later there was the notion of a "system table" to
>differentiate
>Job MIB versions. This would be a new mandatory table.
>Finally, there are
>proposed modifications in the details of the objects in this table.
>>While I welcome and have been very willing to discuss spec
>changes to the
>standard, I feel the PWG process recognizes a v1 PWG Job MIB
>standard which
>is in PWG maintenance mode. I believe this should be
>considered the most
>stable version and the one that is published to the IETF. A
>SECOND updated
>PWG Job MIB standard is entirely feasible but I don't believe
>it is valid
>to publish new mandatary objects in the first EXTERNAL version of the
>standard.
>>I highly recommend at least one coordinated interoperability
>test prior to
>declaring the second major version of the Job MIB standard.
>>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>harryl at us.ibm.com>>