I'm sure Geneva was a compromise, but it was chosen, served the needs
at the time, and there (evidently) hasn't been an overwhelming desire
to change it since. Same can be said for many IETF standards. Some,
however, like LPR, will be superseded. The IETF is asking us to
be sure we "document" this transition (perhaps for historians, if
no one else;-).
>The idea of 56 or 64k of connectivity on-line as a household norm is a
>fantasy in many parts of the world....
Electricity is a fantasy in some parts of the world.
>I see a core group of names here effectively making decisions on things
>because they seem to think they have a de facto monopoly. This is not the
>correct procedure, spirit or rules for standard making.
Or, could it be these are the ones willing to invest their time, energy
and productivity toward what they believe is a worthy goal, even though
it means struggling against the tide in some cases?
>We are here to make the best, not just the most expedient and be damned !!
>The IETF has certain rules, certain traditions of technical excellence and
>wide, international participation to make sure it will work for everyone,
>not just a handful of printer companies for their US market.
I think it was Keith Moore who, most recently on these wires, quoted
one of the IETF idioms... "the best is the enemy of the good".
>I am going to refer this to the secretary of the internet society as an
>example of yet another US hijack and problem waiting to happen because of
>the assumption that HTTP is the "only" way to go and the rest of the world
>can slop bandwidth around in the same manner as is implicitly assumed from
>what I see. Putting an entire printer set of objects and scenarios in HTTP
>is nuts.
I never thought it made sense to do a Printer MIB. Yet, the IETF didn't
stop us, in fact, they chartered and mentored the activity. In retrospect,
I still don't think SNMP is the ideal printer status, configuration or
management protocol, but I realize that it has elevated the degree
of common printer information available in the industry, making standard
printer management in a multi-vendor environment a reality. That's hard
to "knock".
>Can we please have an open, honest debate on this that everyone can have
>say in as per IETF traditions ?
Isn't this what we're doing here?
Harry Lewis.