Subject: IPP> Re: PMP> IETF concerns regarding the Printer MIB draft?

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:11:37 -0400

If anyone thinks the Printer MIB is "broken" (especially someone in position at
the IESG or IETF) I hope they will share this with the PMP mailing list. The
IETF understands not everyone can manage to attend the in-person meetings where
this was evidently discussed. I suspect I may be misunderstanding Keith's
comments - having heard them somewhat out of context.

I find it amusing that the IESG is nervous about IPP aligning with the Printer
MIB because they think it might be "broke" (even though it has wide support in
the industry) when the same body (IETF/IESG) overrode the PWG initially, during
development of the Printer MIB, by insisting we align with the Host Resources
MIB which has resulted in most of the  Printer MIB problems encountered.

I don't have a problem with MIME, in particular. Things change, improve etc. If
there are good reasons for IPP to use MIME (or register MIME and enums), this
is valid and IESG recommendations should be followed. But the IESG must realize
that the IETF has had major influence on the Printer MIB so it seems a bit odd
to hear them now say the Printer MIB is "broke".

I hope we can clarify and get to the bottom of recent IESG comments concerning
both the Printer and the Job MIBs being broken or unchartered.

Harry Lewis

------ Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 08/18/97 12:40 PM -------

[email-masked] on 08/18/97 12:09:46 PM
Please respond to [email-masked] @ internet
To: [email-masked] @ internet, [email-masked] @ internet
cc: [email-masked] @ internet
Subject: IPP> Re: PMP> IETF concerns regarding the Printer MIB draft?

As the leader of the discussion on the IPP Model while reviewing recent
issues, it became clear to me that by making statements about
aligning "IPP with the Printer MIB and with the Job Montoring MIB" caused
much consternation among the attendees of the working group meeting.
It basicaly came down to the fact that there is no such thing as a Job
Monitoring MIB and the Printer MIB is broken and will receive serious
push back from the IESG.

As Randy pointed out, we had to remind the group that this was an IPP
working group meeting and not a printmib working group meeting. However,
the feeling of the attendees can be summarized by quoting one vocal
observation made during the meeting:

"If Keith says that you will  receive considerable pushback from the IESG if
you align IPP with Printer MIB enums for document format rather than MIME
types, interpret that to mean that the IESG will reject any propsal that is
based on Printer MIB enums rather than MIME types for document format
identifiers."

Later in the meeting, Harold A. joined the meeing and also endorsed the
proposal of using MIME types rather than printer MIB enums.

There were several reasons voiced for using MIME types rather than
IANA registered enums for document formats:

1. Levels and Versions could be captured as needed in MIME types rather
than having 3 different objects in the MIB

2. There is a standard way of adding the encoding used within the MIME type
itself rather than adding yet another object to identify the code set and
encoding used (such as the IPP proposed "document-char-set" attribute)

3. Printer MIB enums are useful in a Management Context, but IPP is being
deployed in a general, end user environment.  Alignment with the Printer MIB
enums satisfies only a few tools and existing practice rather than
satisfying
a MUCH larger set of tools and existing practice for other entities that
will
interact with IPP.

At this point in the discussion, is where Keith suggested that the Printer
MIB
was "broken" in this regard and that it would need to be "fixed" before
being able to be progressed by the IESG.

Jay, you included a concern that public comments be addressed on the
discussion list.  I assumed that all comments made at the meeting were
"public" comments and that they would be captured in the meeting notes
and hence published on the mailing list.  This is what happened, however
the disucssion list and meeting minutes were for IPP, not PMP.

Thanks to you, we have now started this on the PMP discussion list.  As
Randy's notes indicate, there was fairly persuasive and strong comments
about using MIME types.  I don't know if any more on this discussion
should be carried out on the IPP or PWG mailing lists?

Scott I.

************************************************************
Scott A. Isaacson
Print Services Consulting Engineer
Novell Inc., 122 E 1700 S, Provo, UT 84606
V: (801) 861-7366, (800) 453-1267 x17366
F: (801) 861-4025, E: [email-masked]
W: http://www.novell.com
************************************************************

>>> JK Martin <[email-masked]> 08/12/97 09:34PM >>>
>From Randy Turner's recent minutes on the IPP WG meeting
at the IETF plenary last week:

16. Use of MIME types for "document-format"

    Currently, the model document specifies the use of Printer MIB
    enumerations for specification of document-format. In addition,
    at a recent IPP meeting, it was agreed that enumerations for
    PDF and HTML would be added to this list.

    Upon hearing the proposed alignment with the Printer MIB for
    these values, "a lively discussion ensued".

    It was the opinion of Larry Masinter (chair of HTTP WG), Keith
    Moore, and most of the IETF audience that alignment with the
    Printer MIB was a mistake, and that we should focus on sticking
    with MIME-type specifications.

    Further, Keith Moore went on to say that the current draft of
    the Printer MIB was "broken", and that he is seriously
    considering delaying advancement of the Printer MIB draft until
    this (and possibly other) issues are addressed.  Keith did not
    go into any detailed analysis of why the MIB was broken, but
    seemed to suggest that there were more than one reason why it's
    broken. He went on to say that its possible that (ironically)
    the IESG might suggest to the working group that the Printer
    MIB should align itself with the MIME-types and change the way
    that interpreters are enumerated in the MIB. He suggested that
    the group should consider strings, and not enumerations, to
    specify these types (i.e., MIME types). Keith was pretty adamant
    on this issue and would have conntinued discussion, but Steve Z.
    and Scott suggested that discussion on the Printer MIB was
    not appropriate at an IPP WG meeting.

This is *most* disconcerting.  Can someone shed some light on this
situation?

In particular, I find it rather disappointing that such statements
were made in Germany...yet nothing of the sort was posted on the
mailing list.

I could have sworn that ALL public comments were supposed to be
published on the mailing lists.

 ...jay

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:46:58 +0200

Oops control, as usual....

The Applications Area Directors do not think that the Printer MIB is
broken.

The Apps ADs think that one particular decision was mistaken:
To establish a register of print languages (the prtInterpreterLangFamily)
and not to register those as MIME types.

We also have doubts about the use of integers rather than names for
character sets (the CodedCharSet textual convention), but since this
is just 2 pointers into the same registry, and the IANA appears to be
maintaining this double registry, it is less harmful overall.

We think the Right Thing is that the IPP group or the PrinterMIB group
should register all the currently unregistered printer formats as MIME
types, and that the IPP group should use the MIME types to indicate the
content of their MIME objects.

With regard to the Job MIB, it seems clear that:

- The IETF has no consensus position that it is a Good Thing to deploy
  MIBs as a means of users' access to information (as opposed to an
  administrator's access). In particular, the access control models
  currently being defined in the SNMPv3 group are not based on the idea
  that all users need MIB access; we do not want to bring this idea into
  that process, for fear of delaying it further.

- The IETF has consensus that there is no need for all MIBs to be
  Internet standards. Informational MIBs, or MIBs developed by other
  organizations, are Good Things; the IETF can sometimes assist in their
  reviews, without necessarily taking responsibility.

- Given the two positions above, we think that it's better for the
  Job MIB to be submitted to the IETF as an external document and given
  Informational status as a protocol under PWG control.

There was some unfortunate fumbling of balls in the handover of this
group from the NM area to the Apps area, where the status of this request
for revised charter seemed to have been lost; I had hoped that we had
agreement on the positions above, but it seems that we didn't.

(this discussion should be moved to the Printer MIB list only, but since
it seems I've fallen off it, please keep me in the CC line....)

                      Harald Tveit Alvestrand
                             Apps AD