Chris and I discussed this with regards to what would be the
best thing for the Printer MIB. Because we are finally getting
some attention from our IETF Area Directors on the HR MIB and
the Printer MIB, we feel that interjecting option 3 into the mix
is not the appropriate thing to do. It would only slow down the
progress that has been made to date. I know that it has been
invisible progress to most of you but there has been progress
none the less. With the assumption that option 2 means the Printer
MIB and the Finisher MIB would have two RFC numbers, the advantage
of option 2 over option 1 is that the Finisher MIB would have
a RFC number faster. Option 2 appears to be the best choice.
Lloyd
------ Ron's original message -------
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:44:22 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
From: Ron Bergman <rbergma at dpc.com>
To: fin at pwg.org, pmp at pwg.org
Cc: Lloyd Young <lpyoung at lexmark.com>, Chris Wellens <chrisw at iwl.com>
Subject: FIN> Finisher MIB, Where do we go from here?
Message-Id: <Pine.WNT.3.96.981029160859.121E-100000 at rbergm.dpc.com>
X-X-Sender: rbergma at newmai.dpc.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: fin-owner at pwg.org
Status: R
I am going to submit the latest finisher MIB to Internet-Drafts tomorrow.
This is the version posted last week with the changes to fix the
compilation problems reported by Ira, with the addition of the change to
finSupplyCurrentLevel requested by Paul Henerlau.
Now, where do we go from here? Since the Finisher MIB is an extension of
the Printer MIB and the current draft is dependent upon the updated
Printer MIB, our options for the current draft are somewhat limited. I
can think of four possibilities;
1. Wait until the Printer MIB is assigned an RFC number and then submit
the Finisher MIB.
2. Submit both the Printer MIB and the Finisher MIB to the IESG as a
set.
3. Integrate the Finisher MIB into the Printer MIB and submit the
combined MIB to the IESG.
4. The only other alternative is to remove the dependencies upon the
Printer MIB Textual Conventions, and submit immediately.
I don't believe that number 4 is in our long term best interests. 2 and 3
are the only reasonable alternatives.
Comments?
Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.
------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd Young Lexmark International, Inc.
Senior Program Manager Dept. C08L/Bldg. 035-3
Strategic Alliances 740 New Circle Road NW
internet: lpyoung at lexmark.com Lexington, KY 40550
Phone: (606) 232-5150 Fax: (606) 232-6740