Tom,
I believe that the group has approved, in concept, both the mirror table
and the system table for version 2. I don't know if everyone has
completed a through review of your proposal to expand the attributes-
supported object into three parts. (I certainly have not had the time!)
I am sure that improvements will be proposed both as a result of further
review, implementation experience, and interoperability testing, but I do
not expect major changes.
Ron
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Hastings, Tom N wrote:
> We (Xerox) could go along with removing the mirror table as well, as long as
> we can get some agreement in the JMP WG that the internal PWG version 2.0
> spec is agreed to for the two new groups:
>> the OPTIONAL mirror table
> the MANDATORY new system group
>> Then implementer's who want or need to can build to the 2.0 spec for the
> interoperability test next summer with some assurance that these groups
> won't be changed arbitrarily, but only possibility from the results of the
> interoperability testing. The best way to ascertain that we have agreement
> on these two new groups would be to do a Last Call on them, but keep the
> resulting spec as a PWG Working Draft. I.e., not forward the version 2.0
> spec to the IETF until after the interoperability test (and any updates that
> are found to be needed).
>> How does that sound?
>> Thanks,
> Tom
>> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ron Bergman [mailto:rbergma at dpc.com]
> >Sent: Friday, January 08, 1999 07:37
> >To: harryl at us.ibm.com> >Cc: Hastings, Tom N; jmp
> >Subject: RE: JMP> Ballot on Xerox Job MIB comments
> >
> >
> >Since the Mirror table is optional, I do not have a real
> >problem with it
> >either added or removed. But Harry does have a good point and
> >it probably
> >best that it not be included in version 1.0. This would also
> >be a better
> >position for us with the IETF.
> >
> >Anyone else have comments?
> >
> > Ron Bergman
> > Dataproducts Corp.
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 harryl at us.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 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> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>