attachment-0001

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7226.0"> <TITLE>Topics for Port Monitor MIB Meeting</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY>  Hi Harry, Since I am not able to attend the PWG meetings next week, here is my suggestions for the Port Monitor MIB meeting agenda. 1. Review the agreed changes from the phone conference last week, which added two new objects to the MIB.  The latest document, containing these changes is at:   <A HREF="ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/wd/lcrc-pmpportmib10-20050404.pdf">ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/wd/lcrc-pmpportmib10-20050404.pdf</A> (.doc .mib) 2. Review the 3 new issues from Bert Wijnen in Ira's email dated 6 April 2005.  I have briefly read the proposed changes and do not have any objection.  The proposal does not add any new objects and should not affect any current implementations (even though I suspect none exist). 3. Most Important!  Agree to a plan to either have an interoperability test or have Microsoft provide a "self certification" utility.  I would certainly prefer the latter, but there are definite advantages to a face-to-face test, even though it will be a major pain.  A "self certification" utility, if selected, would allow vendors to test as quickly as they are able to generate the code, and not require a postponement until a critical mass is ready. 4. Any other issues deemed appropriate.         Ron Bergman         Ricoh Printing Systems America </BODY> </HTML>