I don't understand. Why is the Printer Working Group, which is not
affiliated with IETF, working on documents which are marked as work
items of the IETF Printer MIB working group?
I'm happy to see that the PWG is asking IETF MIB experts for review
of its documents, and I have no objection to the technical changes
mentioned in your message. But I continue to find the apparent confusion
of PWG members about the relationship of PWG with IETF working groups,
quite disconcerting.
Keith
> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:07:32 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
> From: Ron Bergman <rbergma at dpc.com>
> To: WIJNEN at VNET.IBM.COM, dperkins at scruznet.com> cc: jmp at pwg.org, Lloyd Young <lpyoung at lexmark.com>,
> Chris Wellens <chrisw at iwl.com>,
> Tom Hastings <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>,
> Harry Lewis <harryl at us.ibm.com>, moore at cs.utk.edu, scoya at ietf.org,
>Harald.Alvestrand at maxware.no, rfc-editor at isi.edu> Subject: Job Monitoring MIB, Request for Publication as an RFC
>> Bert and David,
>> The Printer Working Group has revised the Job Monitoring MIB draft,
> incorporating many of the changes that you have recommended. We believe
> that the documents are now ready to be published as RFCs. The latest
> drafts are available in the IETF Internet-Drafts directory as:
>> draft-ietf-printmib-job-monitor-08.txt (Feb 19, 1999)
> draft-ietf-printmib-job-protomap-04.txt (Sept 21, 1998)
>> During our previous communications, you had suggested that the MIB
> document be published as an Experimental RFC. The PWG does not object
> to either an Informational or an Experimental status. The companion
> Mapping Recommendations document should be an Informational RFC
> regardless.
>> We are requesting that you review the updated document and provide a
> recommendation for publication. Following your review, the PWG will
> submit the documents to the appropriate IETF representative for
> publication.
>> A summary of the document changes:
>> 1. All REFERENCES clauses have been removed since they referred to
> sections in the specification that are not within the actual MIB.
> This change was recommended by Bert Wijnen and Keith McCloghrie.
>> 2. Moved the definitions of the enumerations from the Textual Convention
> entries in the MIB to the sections preceding the MIB. This change
> was applied to JmAttributeTypeTC, JmJobSubmissionIDTypeTC,
> JmJobStateReasons1TC, JmJobStateReasons2TC, JmJobStateReasons3TC, and
> JmJobStateReasons4TC. This change was recommended by Keith
> McCloghrie.
>> 3. Added the related data types as ASN.1 comments for each enumeration
> in JmAttributeTypeTC.
>> 4. Replaced the use of "SHALL" with "is" for those cases where the
> statement is not a conformance requirement. This change was
> recommended by Bert Wijnen.
>> 5. Clarified sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.7 to explain that the DEFVAL of 0
> for index attributes is different from the DEFVAL of -2 for
> JmAttributeValueAsInteger.
>> 6. Clarified the relationships of the values of JmJobCollationTypeTC
> with the IPP "multiple-document-handling" attribute.
>> 7. Clarified that the values of the mediumRequested(170) and
> mediumConsumed(171) attributes may be any of the IPP media values of
> media name, media size names, and input tray names.
>> 8. Added two new attributes, mediumTypeConsumed(174) and
> mediumSizeConsumed(175) to JmAttributeTypeTC.
>> 9. Changed "insure" to "ensure".
>> 10. Fixed an incorrect reference in the jmAttributeEntry DESCRIPTION
> clause from jmJobTable to jmAttributeTable.
>>> The PWG would like to thank you for your time and patience in this matter.
>>> For the PWG,
>> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.
>rbergma at dpc.com> voice: 805 578 4421
> fax: 805 578 4005
>>