Subject: Re[2]: JMP> Re: PMP> IETF concerns regarding the Printer MIB

From: [email-masked] (Bill Wagner)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:00:22 -0400

The message from Harald Tveit Alvestrand suggests that his 
     recommendation to not make the JOB Monitoring MIB standards track 
     might be based on a misunderstanding that  the  JMM is "a means of 
     users' access to information (as opposed to an administrator's 
     access)." SNMP for users rather than administrators apparently is a 
     point of contention.
     
     However, I understand that the major purpose of the JMM is 
     administrator and administration agent access to printer utilization 
     information. Indeed, the inherent inappropriateness of SNMP for 
     extensive end user access would suggest that the JMM would be used by 
     an administrative agent for traffic monitoring and accounting purposes 
     and that the information may be relayed to the end user via something 
     like SENSE  or the IBM or HP SNMP/HTTP capabilities.
     
     However, another point implicit in the recommendation is that an 
     industry might know more about the needs of their product and their 
     customers than the IETF/IESG. There may be some merit in this. 
     
     Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI

     
     ______________________________ Reply Separator 
     _________________________________
     Subject: Re: JMP> Re: PMP> IETF concerns regarding the Printer MIB dr
Author:  Harry Lewis <[email-masked]> at Internet
Date:    8/20/97 11:37 AM

Chris and Lloyd... I'm sure you would have informed the JMP promptly 
had there been clear signals from the IESG. No doubt in my mind!
     
>If a clear decision had been made and communicated to us, we 
>would certainly have forwarded it to the jmp list promptly. 
>It is not productive to guess, speculate, and communicate 
>partial information to the list that would just get people 
>anxious and confused and turn out to be wrong in the final 
>analysis.
     
Given where we are, however, does it seem at all feasible that we could be 
considered "chartered" and, if not, what do we do now? My interpretation 
of the IESG comments is that the authors should submit an informational 
RFC describing the Job MIB and the PWG should maintain the standard. This 
would be the first "PWG standard". Is the PWG ready for this?
     
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems