Subject: PMP> Status of Printer MIB

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:42:33 -0400

In response to Lloyd's question,

>I want to ask the working group one more time do we really want
>to move this MIB forward to a Draft Standard.

I guess I'll be first to stick my neck out and say I lean toward remaining at
Proposed in order to deliver the enhancements sooner. The only benefit I can
see going to Draft is if there are Printer, Printer Software and/or OS/NOS
vendors
who will not adopt the Printer MIB unless it is Draft. If this sentiment
exists,
I hope it will be expressed in response to this topic.

Likewise, would it be more expedient for the HR MIB to embrace it's
improvements
in a similar fashion... remaining at Proposed? I would still like to see the
additional hrPrinterDetectedErrorState bits align with our updated MIB!

In general, it appears the IETF is less interested in playing a major role in
standardizing MIBs, these days. They've basically refused to consider the Job
MIB
which leads me to believe they have relegated all future standard MIBs to
the status of Proposed or Informational.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

---

From: [email-masked] (Bill Wagner)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:51:14 -0400

There are two distinct implications in Lloyd's suggestion/request. 
     
        1. a well documented, widely implemented MIB will become a defacto 
     standard (and we should proceed with version 2 of the printer MIB in 
     this basis)
     
        2. The Proposed standard level is an adequate an appropriate level 
     for documentation
     
     I agree with the first point. In retrospect, I think that if we had 
     simply developed a MIB without trying to conform to the inconsistent 
     dictates of IETF/IESG/whoever, we would have had something a bit more 
     suitable quite a bit faster. I got the notion that Harald  had 
     suggested, in a message after the Munich meeting, pretty much the idea 
     that an industry should make its MIB's independent of IESG...that the 
     current powers that be were not interested in printers or power 
     supplies or toasters provided that they did nothing to confuse or clog 
     the internet. 
     
     I am not so sure of the idea of a proposed standard RFC being the 
     proper way to document this industry standard. Although the rules are 
     modified when convenient, I seem to recall a two year limit on 
     proposed standards? And, will the IETF consider a proposed standard as 
     something to be maintained or is that up to the whim of whoever 
     happens to be making the determination at the time? If the IETF does 
     not take ownership, who does? Does a standard not owned and supported 
     have any weight?
     
     The implication is that some other continuing body should assume 
     ownership. This could be the PWG (although I suspect it would require 
     that the group assume a more corporate nature); perhaps it could be 
     IEEE with whom the PWG has long worked. I think that something like 
     this may be necessary.
     
     The problem of the official OID position in MIB 2 (rather than 
     something shunted off into the enterprise MIB's) is a concern. The 
     MIB's for all implementers should appear under the same OID. Perhaps 
     IETF will make up a new category of OID for industry standards not 
     specificlaly monitored by  the IETF. Alternatively, I recall when we 
     were considering a MIF to become  a MIB, DMTF had suggested that IETF 
     was unpredictable, but that if IETF did not accept the printer MIB and 
     give it a slot, it could be put under the general DMTF slot (does DMTF 
     still have an OID? Does IEEE have an OID? 
     
     Bill Wagner
     
     Osicom/DPI

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: PMP> Status of Printer MIB
Author:  Jay Martin <[email-masked]> at Internet
Date:    10/1/97 2:55 PM

I tend to agree with Harry's previous response on this topic.
     
I know there are some folks in the PWG who really believe a standard 
is only "real" if it is Draft (or higher) and is on track for full 
IESG adoption.
     
Given the fact that the printer industry seems to have fully embraced 
RFC 1759 as a Proposed standard (evidenced by the many products that 
have been offered in the marketplace), does anyone really believe the 
same won't be true of this new Printer MIB version?
     
I'm hoping that as long as we CLOSE the development of this round of 
the Printer MIB (ie, no more changes!), then the printer industry 
will use this new standard (having a new RFC number) as the current 
benchmark for product development.
     
Does anyone out there disagree with this position and its assumptions?
     
        ...jay
     
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
--  JK Martin               |  Email:   [email-masked]          -- 
--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              -- 
--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              -- 
--  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   -- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> I wanted to update you on the status of the Printer MIB. As you 
> probably remember we cannot advance the Printer MIB to Draft
> Standard until the Host Resources MIB is advanced to Draft Standard. 
> A chairman for a Host Resources MIB working group has been
> appointed but has been involved in SNMPv3 and has not been able
> to get the HR MIB working group going yet. He was supposed to free 
> up from SNMPv3 during the month of October and subsequently start
> the HR MIB work. Chris and I have drafted our formal request to our 
> Area Directors asking that the Printer MIB be considered for
> Draft Standard. Currently we have not sent the formal request 
> because we are tidying up the supporting material required to
> progress the MIB forward. I do not have a firm schedule for when 
> the new MIB might be moved forward due to our dependency on
> the HR MIB. If things progress as desired, we might be well on 
> our way to Draft status by the end of 1997.
> 
> to move this MIB forward to a Draft Standard. On the current path, 
> we are delaying getting products to market that might incorporate 
> the changes in the latest Printer MIB in order to achieve the
> Draft Standard status. We could get the updated Printer MIB to 
> Proposed Standard much faster than to Draft Standard. It is a
> simple trade-off of time to market versus the prestige of being 
> a Draft Standard. I am not convinced that the prestige of being
> a Draft Standard is all that great. I wanted to hear opinions from 
> the rest of the working group.
> Regards,
> Lloyd
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------ 
> Lloyd Young                       Lexmark International, Inc. 
> Senior Program Manager            Dept. C14L/Bldg. 035-3
> Strategic Alliances               740 New Circle Road NW 
> internet: [email-masked]     Lexington, KY 40550
> Phone: (606) 232-5150             Fax: (606) 232-6740

---

From: "Caruso, Angelo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:38:06 PDT

Lloyd,

In my opinion, the prestige of advancing the MIB to draft standard is
not worth the price of the restrictions dictated by the IETF. This is
especially true considering the fact that all major printer vendors are
already shipping products based on a "proposed standard". I think the V1
MIB is incomplete and in some cases broken and that work should begin on
V2. I also believe V2 can be done in such a way as to minimize the
impact on existing implementations. If we end up going this route, it is
a shame to think we've lost at least a year dotting the Is and crossing
the Ts while we could have been arguing the V2 issues.

Angelo

---

From: Bob Pentecost <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:08:01 -0600

Lloyd & PMP people,

I would be perfectly happy with the Printer MIB as a proposed standard instead of jumping through hoops to make it a draft standard. I don't believe the number of implementations or their quality will increase due to being further along the standards track. A standard is effective when it is widely adopted, regardless of its position on the standards track. We've made improvements to the Printer MIB, so let's get going on the implementations (so we can have another fun bake-off? :-).

 It would be nice to get the Host Resources MIB cleaned up, but I don't think we should be waiting for something we don't control.

Bob Pentecost
HP

----------
From:  [email-masked][SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:  Wednesday, October 01, 1997 7:47 AM
To:  [email-masked]
Subject:  PMP> Status of Printer MIB

---

From: Paul Gloger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:44:39 PDT

It is my impression that, other things being equal, the fact that a
standard is some kind of IETF standards-track RFC carries a lot of weight
in the world; whereas the precise level of that standard along the
standards track - proposed, draft, whatever - carries little weight.

Therefore it seems to me very beneficial to the Printer MIB's cause if it
could be issued as an RFC somewhere on the IETF standards track; and of
much less import whether it be a proposed standard or draft standard or
whatever particular level along that track.

/Paul

---

From: [email-masked] (Ira Mcdonald x10962)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:59:39 PDT

Hi Ron,

Thanks for sending your concurrence on staying at 'Proposed Standard'
status for the new Printer MIB v2.  Thanks also for noting that some
changes were NOT included earlier this year specifically in order
to stay closer to the original Printer MIB (RFC 1759), in order to
be able to go to a higher status with Printer MIB v2.  

Also, while your intent was clear (in your note, below), you're
terms for standardization status are a little confused.  As 
'standards track' RFC proceeds through three (3) levels:

Proposed Standard - lowest level (first on the 'track')
Draft Standard - middle level (second on the 'track')
[Final] Standard - highest level (last on the 'track')

Note that VERY few RFCs have achieved '[Final] Standard'
status in recent years and not many have achieved 'Draft
Standard' status, so the Printer MIB is in good company.

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
------------------------------- Ron's note -------------------------------
>From [email-masked] Tue Oct 14 12:40:23 1997
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:28:09 PDT
From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re:  PMP> Status of Printer MIB
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: R

It is discouraging to have worked for almost two years to move the Printer
MIB to Proposed status and now find that we either wait an indefinite time
to achieve this goal or keep the new document at Draft status.  Also, some
changes were ignored or modified to insure that there would not be any
objections to move the document to Proposed.

With that said, I also agree that we are better off to release the new
Printer MIB at Proposed than to hold the document for what could be years.  

	Ron Bergman
	Dataproducts Corp.