attachment-0001

I would think that if it's really that hard to put down into words the the problems being solved (and what's required to solve these problems), then the resulting work product is probably not worth of being standardized in the first place. In the case of the PortMon MIB it should be pretty easy to list what the problem is with respect to the configuration of a network printer port on the client side and the installation of an appropriate printer driver, and to create a bulleted list of what needs to be part of the MIB to enable this. In the case of the Counter Spec. it should also be fairly straightforward to create a couple of paragraphs explaining what needs to be counted and why as far as the need for billing/fleet management metrics. I don't see this as a failure of the Process 2.0 since this was required in the original PWG Process document, I see it more as "our" failure to follow it. JT <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <td>"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org 05/23/2005 03:19 PM <td>                To:        "'pwg@pwg.org'" <pwg@pwg.org>         cc:                 Subject:        PWG> SC topic - no requirements in Counter Spec or Port MIB</table> <tt>Hi, </tt> <tt>A topic for this Thursday's PWG Steering Committee: </tt> <tt>Both the PWG Imaging System Counters spec and the PWG Port Monitor MIB do _not_ have an internal requirements section.  Without an explicit variance from the PWG SC, neither of these documents can enter Formal Approval (the PWG Process/2.0 has no loopholes here). </tt> <tt>On the other hand, the PWG Imaging Counter MIB _does_ have an internal requirements section. </tt> <tt>Mea culpa - I should have realized this problem with both specs a long time back, but the question is, what to do? </tt> <tt>Cheers, - Ira </tt> <tt>Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High North Inc PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839 phone: +1-906-494-2434</tt> <tt>email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com</tt>