Jay wrote:
>I have no problem (now) with the notion of extending the octet string
>definition of hrPrtDetectedErrorState, given you fine explanation of
>the situation at the interop test earlier this week.
>>However, are you suggesting that this become part of the "changes"
>made to RFC1759 as it moves from Proposed to Draft, or would this
>be part of Printer MIB II (the sequel)?
We'll need a bit of direction from the IETF on this. I plan to seek it
alone, if I must, but would rather act on behalf of the PWG. I've
considered these alternatives (probably poorly stated due to my lack
of familiarity with "official" IETF process...
1. Submit an RFC that references and extends RFC1514 by one of the
following methods
A. Defines several bits in the 2nd octet in hrPrtDetectedErrorState
B. Abdacates control of hrPrtDetectedErrorState future definitions
to the PWG. Then define the bits in our new Printer MIB or
via seperate RFC.
2. Solicit the IETF to reactivate the hrMIB working group for
purposes of extending hrPrtDetectedErrorState on the basis
that PMP interoperability testing has shown the curent set of
definitions to be inadequate and the cause of confusion.
I fully understand the level of frustration we have as a group over
use of RFC1514 and the fact that no one else may desire to engage
this topic. I will keep the PMP group notified of every step I take.
My main concern is that of prolonging the PMP project. My definitions
are few and straightforward. I welcome additions. If we don't get
too carried away, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to resolve
these quickly.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems