>From: Patrick Powell <papowell@dickory.sdsu.edu>
>.................. In addition, I think that the scope of the IPP
>protocol discussions and model is too limited - better to do it
>all at once rather than to have SNMP/SNMP II all over again.
I thought the IETF ran on the philosophy "rough consensus, running
code and a 6 month whip" (or something on that order). The broadening
scope of IPP is what will keep it from happening in a reasonable
timeframe.
Are you saying SNMP should never have happened because SNMP-II fell
in a rut? Maybe it's v2 that we really didn't need?
I certainly recall wanting to do the Printer MIB "RIGHT" in several
areas, broadening scope to include ACTUAL PRINTER STATUS, for
example, and coming under the pressure of IETF to conform to HR MIB
(thank goodness we're not being asked to CONFORM to LPR!), cut to
the chase and ship the spec. Would I like to go back and correct the
Status portion of the Printer MIB - YES. Is the Printer MIB, nonetheless,
useful? With 7+ printer implementations and more software coming on
line every month, arguably - YES.
So, while I despised the "IETF way" while developing the standard,
I've come to respect the benefit and expect them, now, to help keep
IPP focused on their original goals, charter and timeframe.
Harry Lewis