Subject: JMP> Minutes of JMP meeting - thanks Harry

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:04:10 PST

I've posted the minutes that Harry took in:

  ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/minutes/

-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        20480 Feb 12 21:24
970207-jmp-meeting-minutes.doc
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg        10507 Feb 19 06:40
970207-jmp-meeting-minutes.pdf
-rw-r--r--   1 pwg      pwg         3183 Feb 19 06:41
970207-jmp-meeting-minutes.txt

The issues that I posted last week contain the additional
agreements reached after Harry had to leave.

There is one additional issues raised because Harry's notes
start off with the agreement that we move jmJobSubmissionTime
from the JobTable to the QueueTable.  However, the later paper
that we considered moved jmJobSubmissionTime to the ResourceTable.

There are pros and cons with each:

Moving jmJobSubmissionTime to the QueueTable means that an implementation
that queues, shall implement the time, which is probably not a burden
on something that queues and means that jobs will get a time stamp
as they are entered into the MIB.  On the other hand, a Printer
that doesn't queue, cannot have a jmJobSubmissionTime at all.

The advantage of putting it in the ResourceTable is for implementations
that don't have concept of time.  But our experience with alerts in
the Printer MIB say it was a mistake not to require time stamps
on alerts, so we changes prtAlertTime to become mandatory.  Same
should be true for JobSubmissionTime, shouldn't it?

And shouldn't the job submission time be recorded whether
the implementation queues or not?

I've added this issue as issue 47 and updated issues.doc, issues.pdf
and issues.pdr accordingly.  See contributions sub-directory.

Tom