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

From: Scott Isaacson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 10:01:09 -0600

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: JK Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 15:36:01 -0400 (EDT)

Scott,

Thanks for the background info on these newly discovered issues.

> based on Printer MIB enums rather than MIME types for document format

Personally, I don't really have a problem with moving from enums to
MIME types in the Printer MIB.  (Others, though, may have some *real*
problems.)

The thing that concerns me is that the Munich meeting is the first time
anyone on the PMP list has heard about these attitudes and positions.
This situation does not make the IETF look very good, unfortunately.
We really must address this kind of problem so that it doesn't happen
in the future.

> 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.

Alright, I'll bite: how is the Printer MIB broken?

And again, why was it in Munich that the public was first made aware of
this critical situation?  (I realize, Scott, that you probably don't
have an answer to this question, but perhaps someone out there can shed
some light on this situation.)

> the disucssion list and meeting minutes were for IPP, not PMP.

Sure, the meeting minutes (or equivalent) of the Munich meeting are
public.  However, I was refering to the fact that no public posting
of concerns for the Printer MIB being broken were posted on the PMP
mailing list...as mandated by the IETF (right?).

If the Printer MIB is indeed "broken", then by all means we surely
want to fix it.  However, many of us have been working very, VERY
hard for a long time now to get the latest draft out...only to find
that some IETF people in charge have serious concerns about the draft,
and that we are only now finding out about after we have essentially
finished our work.

I have really come to admire the IETF's "lean-and-mean" approach to
developing public standards, however this kind of situation is not
in the best interest of anyone.  Not for the IETF, and certainly not
for the many participants who have spent *considerable* time and money
to get the Printer MIB this far.

Am I alone in this belief?  (If I am, then I'll be more than happy
to shutup and just deal with this kind of activity in the future.)

> should be carried out on the IPP or PWG mailing lists?

By all means, let's get some public comment on moving from enums to
MIME type strings, particularly from the many vendors who are currently
shipping Printer MIB products.

	...jay