Hi Ron,
Certainly not all (or even most) Experimental RFCs eventually
lead to Proposed Standard RFCs, BUT only products of IETF
chartered WGs may be published as Experimental rather
than Informational. The IETF has NOT chartered JMP WG
and without changes to the PMP WG charter, the JMP can't
be a product of the PMP WG (because it's out-of-scope).
I think we were naive in trying to take JMP work forward
a year ago under the Printer MIB WG charter with the IETF.
If we get an actual free-standing Job Mon MIB WG charter
from IETF (not so inconceivable now, in light of the
IPP/1.1 goal of Proposed Standard, with which the IESG
agrees), then getting published as an Experimental RFC
makes good sense and is MUCH more likely than getting
published (initially) as Proposed Standard.
If we are not going for Informational (which RFC 2400
explicitly describes as suitable for standards from
other organizations, such as the PWG) but rather
Experimental, then Tom Hastings' good question about
whether to publish Job Mon MIB v1.0 or v2.0 on that
track is highly relevant. I personally favor
publishing v2.0 as Experimental, but reducing the
conformance level of the last objects added (after
the mirror table itself) to Conditionally Mandatory,
so that all existing v1.0 conformant implementations
are fully compliant with the v2.0 text (such as the
IBM implementation Harry Lewis' team built during
the JMP development phase).
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald