Ron,
Believe me I wish I knew the estimated time table. I know this is very
frustrating for everyone on the Printer MIB and Finisher MIB working groups.
We are still waiting on the HR MIB to progress forward. Hindsight is always
20-20 but dovetailing the Printer MIB with the Host Resources MIB was one
of the worst things we did. Progress is being made on the HR MIB but it
is extremely slow moving. Chris and I are doing everything we can do to
force it to move faster but it is still moving slow.
The only answer that moves the Finisher MIB forward at it's own pace
is to divorce itself from the Printer MIB (which in turn is married
to the HR MIB).
Lloyd
rbergma%dpc.com at interlock.lexmark.com on 11/04/98 05:06:56 PM
To: Lloyd Young at LEXMARK
cc: pmp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com, fin%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com
Subject: Re: FIN> Finisher MIB, Where do we go from here?
Lloyd,
Assuming that there is a strong consensus for option 2, what is your
estimated time table for submission of the documents to the IESG?
One big advantage of option #2: The Finisher MIB can be at a different
standards level than the Printer MIB and any problems in the Finisher MIB
should not hold up the Printer MIB. (i.e. even though they are submitted
together, they do not necessarily have to be published together. But it
would sure be nice if they were.:)
Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 lpyoung at lexmark.com wrote:
> 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
>>>