Subject: IPP> Re: ADM - IPP Charter and Slot in Memphis -Reply

From: "Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 09:14:20 MST

Interesting you should see it this way:

>From: Patrick Powell <[email-masked]>
>..................  In addition,  I think that the scope of the IPP
>protocol discussions and model is too limited - better to do it
>all at once rather than to have SNMP/SNMP II all over again.

I thought the IETF ran on the philosophy "rough consensus, running
code and a 6 month whip" (or something on that order). The broadening
scope of IPP is what will keep it from happening in a reasonable
timeframe.

Are you saying SNMP should never have happened because SNMP-II fell
in a rut? Maybe it's v2 that we really didn't need?

I certainly recall wanting to do the Printer MIB "RIGHT" in several
areas, broadening scope to include ACTUAL PRINTER STATUS, for
example, and coming under the pressure of IETF to conform to HR MIB
(thank goodness we're not being asked to CONFORM to LPR!), cut to
the chase and ship the spec. Would I like to go back and correct the
Status portion of the Printer MIB - YES. Is the Printer MIB, nonetheless,
useful? With 7+ printer implementations and more software coming on
line every month, arguably - YES.

So, while I despised the "IETF way" while developing the standard,
I've come to respect the benefit and expect them, now, to help keep
IPP focused on their original goals, charter and timeframe.

Harry Lewis

---

From: Randy Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 10:45:25 -0800

By the way, FYI, in the past when we have talked about the 
"IETF way" of doing standards and their short 6-month schedules,
I was informed (at the last IETF plenary in San Jose by
Scott Bradner, who is on the IESG), that there is no such thing
as a mandated 6-month schedule in the IETF rules for completing
work. The 6-month time window is a "minimum" not a "maximum", and
that our strict schedule and experience with "heavy-handedness"
at completing our work was the policy of our area director at
the time (Marshall Rose) and has nothing to do with IETF rules.
Scott seemed to think that Marshall was too dictatorial with
not only our WG but other NETMGMT WGs as well.

And while most charters include some time of fairly aggressive
schedule, most WGs end up sacrificing the schedule to come up
with the best (or most concensus) result.

Randy

-- 
Randy Turner
Network Architect
Sharp Laboratories of America
[email-masked]