Ira,
I think that the Job Monitoring MIB may not need a new charter to be
progressed on standard track. Lets not invoke more process than is
necessary. Only if the ADs say we need to do a new charter should we do
that.
Here is what the IANA Home Page says about the Printer MIB WG:
Tom
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Printer MIB (printmib)
Last Modified: 20-Jan-98
Chair(s):
Chris Wellens <chrisw at iwl.com>
Llyod Young <lpyoung at lexmark.com>
Applications Area Director(s):
Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>
Patrik Faltstrom <paf at swip.net>
Applications Area Advisor:
Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:pmp at pwg.org
To Subscribe: majordomo at pwg.org
In Body: In body: subscribe pmp
Archive: http://www.pwg.org/hypermail/pmp/
Description of Working Group:
The Printer MIB Working Group is chartered to develop a set of managed
objects for networked printers. These objects will be the minimum necessary
to provide the ability to monitor and control these systems, providing
fault, configuration and performance management, and will be consistent with
the SNMP framework and existing SNMP standards.
At its discretion, the working group may also define a small number of
unsolicited notifications (traps) which carry these managed objects.
However, the working group recognizes that traps are used sparingly in the
SNMP framework.
The working group recognizes that the area of networked printers is quite
diverse. However, the working group is specifically confined to defining
managed objects that instrument critical information about:
- printer engine
- interpreters
- media
- input sources
- output destinations
- I/O interfaces
Further, the working group is specifically prohibited from defining managed
objects that define instrumentation about:
- other marking technologies (e.g., those that mark onto film)
- fonts
- spooling
- print job management
Goals and Milestones:
Done Post revised Internet-Draft.
Done Submit final Internet-Draft to IESG for consideration as a Proposed
Standard.
Done Meet at Seattle IETF to make final review of MIB.
Done Post first Internet-Draft; continue discussion.
Done Post Internet-Draft. Solicit implementation experience on RFC1759.
Done Post revised Internet-Draft.
Done Meet at Memphis IETF for final MIB review.
Jul 97 Submit Internet-Draft to IESG for consideration as a Draft
Standard.
Internet-Drafts:
Printer MIB (334475 bytes)
Job Monitoring MIB - V1.0 (257216 bytes)
Job Submission Protocol Mapping Recommendations for the Job Monitoring MIB
(53394 bytes)
Printer Finishing MIB (98802 bytes)
Request For Comments:
Printer MIB (RFC 1759) (239228 bytes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
IETF Secretariat - Please send questions, comments, and/or suggestions to
ietf-web at ietf.org.
Return to working group directory.
Return to IETF home page.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ira McDonald [mailto:imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 1999 12:33
To: chrisw at iwl.com; imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com; jmp at pwg.org;
lpyoung at lexmark.com; rbergma at dpc.com
Subject: Re: JMP> Job Monitoring MIB - Last Call
Hi Ron, Thursday (18 March 1999)
I temporarily lost my mind there. Of course, we should FIRST get the
full content of PWG Job Mon MIB v1.0 published as *any* kind of RFC.
But it is intriguing that Bert Wijnen suggested 'Experimental'. Shall
we pursue a free-standing charter for an IETF Job Mon MIB WG? Harry,
do you favor this idea? We could always add the definition of standard
SNMP job traps to our charter. They certainly ARE necessary to get
the most utility out of the PWG Job Mon MIB.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 18:07:10 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
> From: Ron Bergman <rbergma at dpc.com>
> To: Ira McDonald <imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com>
> cc: chrisw at iwl.com, jmp at pwg.org, lpyoung at lexmark.com> Subject: Re: JMP> Job Monitoring MIB - Last Call
>> Ira,
>> I was also very surprised when it was proposed by Bert Wijnen to publish
> the MIB as "Experimental" and I did question this decision. Several other
> IETF members also agreed that it should be "Experimental". I actually
> would prefer "Informational", but as long as it is published they can call
> it a "Dumb PWG Specification".
>> Are you suggesting that we publish 1.0 as "Informational" and 2.0 as
> "Experimental" or "Standards Track"? Or only publish 2.0? The goal has
> been to get an RFC number on 1.0 and then finish 2.0 after a Bake-off.
>> It may make more sense to just get 1.0 published however the IETF wants
> and then push for 2.0 to be standards track.
>> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.