I'm in favor of 2 or 3. Right now we need an RFC. Some (most?) companies
aren't implementing the new draft until it is published as an RFC.
Since we added a few optional things based on experience, there aren't
any implementations of them yet, since the companies are waiting for the
RFC. A real CATCH-22.
Thus I think the PWG completely mis-understood the IETF's idea about
draft standards. We have to delete any objects that haven't been
implemented by at least two implementations, in order to progress to
draft. But if no one has implemented the extensions because they
were waiting for the draft RFC, we have to delete them.
The IETF is NOT like any of the other standards bodies. In other standards
bodies, standards progress from proposed to draft to final or they are
cancelled. In the IETF, most standards stay at proposed. Many have
several versions of proposed, with each one superseding the previous one.
The PWG extensible standards should just stay at proposed, with a new
version superseding the previous one when sufficient extensions
(and clarifications) have been agreed to to make it worth re-publishing.
Any standard that is extensible, such as ours, should stay at proposed.
When extensions are agreed to, a new proposed standard should be made
an RFC. We can decide how rapidly.
Tom
At 14:10 09/08/98 PDT, lpyoung at lexmark.com wrote:
>Don conveyed that some members of the Printer MIB working group at
>the Toronto PWG meeting expressed a desire to take the current draft
>to Proposed status instead of continuing to wait on Draft status.
>I wanted to open up this line of discussion for the entire working
>group.
>>Chris and I are continuing to work on moving the Printer MIB forward to
>Draft status. The progress was been extremely slow. The HR MIB chairman
>has been distracted for several reasons and was not made much progress
>on moving the HR MIB forward. Last week he sent a note telling us that
>most of his distractions are behind him with a plan to move forward.
>One course of action could be to take the current draft to Proposed
>and then attempt to take the current draft to Draft after the HR MIB
>goes to Draft.
>>The options are (as far as I know):
>1. Continue on current course taking new Printer MIB to Draft.
>2. Take current draft to Proposed and leave it there.
>3. Take current draft to Proposed and then to Draft after HR
>MIB goes to Draft.
>>I would like to hear opinions from the rest of the working
>group.
>>Lloyd
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>>>>