Subject: JMP> Re: IPP> Re: PMP> IETF concerns regarding the Printer MIB dr

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:01:45 -0400

Harald - thank you for clarifying the IESG  Printer and Job MIB issues
and sharing this with the appropriate PWG projects which make up the
majority of concerned parties. This is very helpful!

My interpretation is that you are resigned to double registration at
this point. I agree, and view double registration (integers and text)
of PDLs and coded character sets as a natural result of Evolution and
Overlap of application and management standards .

Evolution -  MIME was pretty fresh when the Printer MIB was laying down
it's definitions and, while discussed, the connection between MIME and
print jobs was not so obvious then.

Overlap - like it or not, the Printer MIB *is* used by some end-user
applications to determine device configuration and capabilities and
IPP will be involved in "managing" print jobs. This unacknowledged
overlap may have contributed to some of our most difficult discussion
during development of IPP which related to the use of text strings vs.
integers.

It would be hard to avoid double registration for both reasons.

AS FOR THE Job MIB, you have listed some very reasonable points which
somewhat change the notion which has carried the JMP team - that of
creating an Internet Standard -  but do not necessarily undermine or
resist the desire to have a standard Job MIB within the printer industry
which is also an informational RFC.  I'd like to hear more comment on
this from the Chair and other members of the JMP and IPP.

I have two main concerns...

1. First, the IESG may not understand the role the Job MIB plays in the
administration and accounting  of print jobs. Thus, I fear your statement...

>- 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.

...may be applied to the Job MIB with more weight than is actually warranted.

2. Second, I'm concerned about the effect on IPP if the Job MIB is
treated as informational by the IESG. It should be viewed as a Good Thing
to facilitate harmony between standards - especially those routed within
a particular industry and standards organization. Folks in the printer
industry have been active in defining and deploying solutions based on
Internet Standards, and I don't think we're unique in potentially having
overloaded some. As application and management standards evolve, it is
reasonable for controlling bodies, like the IETF, to project a clearer
picture of the purpose and relationship between standards. But, this
needs to be done in an atmosphere which acknowledges and, if possible,
accommodates this evolution and the resulting current state of affairs.

Thanks, again, for helping disseminate an accurate view of the IEGS's
stance on these issues.

Harry Lewis

---

From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:23:33 -0700 (PDT)

Harry,

Thank you for some of the history as to why the Printer MIB selected
enums rather than MIME types.  However, I would argue that double
registration is not an acceptable solution.  This will require an 
embedded print server to support both enums and MIME types.  It 
would  be best if we only had to deal with one form or the other.  
My preference would certainly be enums!

I have listened to the argument for and against MIME types since the
start of the IPP effort.  I am of the opinion that this is more of a
religious issue than a technical one.  And like other religious
issues, will never be settled!  So, unless the IETF will agree to
accept enums, we will be stuck with having to support both.

I also am disappointed that the IETF has announced the strong stand
against accepting the Job MIB as a Proposed Standard.  The support
for this standard by printer vendors has indicated a real need for 
this effort to progress.  I believe that a Proposed Standard would
encourage the development of more applications that support the MIB 
than if the MIB was an Informational RFC.  I would like to obtain a 
straw vote from the group on this topic.

To my understanding, the real objection from the IETF is that they
believe that the MIB is primarily intended for users.  I do not
fully agree with this position.  In small installations where peer-
to-peer printing is the norm, this is most likely to be true.  In
large installations, where printing is directed through a server,
I expect that the server will be the central point of communications.
(This is configuration 3 in the Job MIB document.)  SNMP would be
used between the server and the printer and the user would obtain
status using a new (e.g. IPP) or existing (e.g. lpd) protocol.  It
should also be noted that usage of the Job MIB would be primarily on
intranet and not internet applications.

These discussions are not new to the JMP participants.  All of these
details have been discussed to death in the PWG meetings and on the
mail list.  Would a more complete presentation of these issues to the
IETF change their minds regarding the decision regarding the status 
and acceptance of the MIB?

	Ron Bergman
	Dataproducts Corp.