Subject: Re: PMP> Status of Printer MIB

From: [email-masked] (Ira Mcdonald x10962)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:13:48 PDT

Hi Harry,

Speaking as an individual (although Xerox is my client, I wouldn't
speculate on their position as a Printer vendor), I think it's
BETTER to move the Printer MIB v2 forward as a Proposed standard,
and avoid dependencies on the status of HR MIB (old RFC 1514).

Note that the IETF has NEVER published any MIB as an Informational
RFC, so it remains to be seen if the IESG would accept that path
for the PWG Job Mon MIB.

In addition, future MIBs (as well as current ones) can only be
published as 'Proposed Standard' by emanating from a chartered
IETF working group and being accepted for the (whole) 'standards
track' by the IESG.  Even 'Experimental' status is reserved for
output from chartered IETF working groups.

Speaking as an individual, I think the PWG should consider becoming
a 'free-standing' standards organization (for the Job Mon MIB).

Note also that under the latest I-D of Harald's IETF Character
Set and Languages Policy (posted recently), the Printer MIB v2
cannot remain on the 'standards track' without specifying the
'charset' AND 'language' of ALL text objects or obtaining a
'BCP9' waiver (you got me what that means) from the IESG.

I've asked Harald in a recent private note how soon he expects
adoption of the IETF Character Set and Languages Policy, 
because it has significant impact on Printer MIB, Job Mon MIB,
and IPP.  When he gets down to that note in his mail, I'll
forward the answer to the PWG PMP list (w/ Harald's permission,
of course).

To read Harald's draft policy go to 
'ftp.ds.internic.net' and get
'internet-drafts/draft-alvestrand-charset-policy-01.txt'

It's only 8 pages, and well-written.

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald (outside consultant at Xerox)
  High North Inc
  906-494-2434

---

From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:28:09 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

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.

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:40:58 -0400

Ron,

I concur with your remorse.  I wish it could be different.

However, if the network printer and printing systems industries
collectively implement products around the same specification,
then the effort will succeed...whether or not the specification
is formally blessed "standard" or not.

De facto standards work very well, too.  (Sometimes even better.)

It would be worth the effort to consider the case of DMI.  That
effort was never folded into the IETF domain (right??), yet it
garnered considerable backing from a large industry.  And, despite
its slow growth out of the starting gate, does not appear to be
going away.

If the printer industry agrees upon a standard--and works together
to ship products against that standard--then it's a "standard".
A rose by any other name, etc...

	...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   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------