Chris, indeed, the PWG *has* been working over a year on forwarding the Printer
MIB. I'm sure archives would show even earlier dates, but let me reference the
following note I found which is illustrative...
>Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 17:46:19 MDT
>From: "Harry Lewis <harryl@VNET.IBM.COM>" <harryl@VNET.IBM.COM>
>To: pmi@hpbs987.boi.hp.com
>Subject: Re: Question from Larry Masinter - what's the PWG
>
>I hope Larry doesn't mind me sharing this on the reflector. It's a good
>question that others may be asking. Hope my answer helps.
>
>>Larry, the PWG is an Industry consortium who's first charter was the
>>creation of a standard printer MIF for the DMTF. (Some like to think of
>>the PWG as an outgrowth of the NPA - Network Printer Alliance - which
>>created the IEEE1284.x standards - that's OK too). After taking on the
>>DMTF charter, a second, simultaneous effort was to create the standard
>>printer MIB which resulted in RFC1759. Currently, the PWG is working on
>>Network print job management, clarifications to the MIF and MIB, improved
>>event notification. Future projects may include Finishing MIB derived from
>>the DMTF (LMO) Finishing MIF etc.
>>
>>Each standards registration body we work with has a tendency to view us
>>myopically as belonging to their organization during the stage in which we
>>are interlocked. That's, OK. That's also probably why you don't see us in
>>the IETF roster today.
>>
>>I'm not savvy to all the IETF rules, MIB status etc, (this way there's no
>>danger of being selected chairman :-) but I believe they would describe
>>RFC1759 as "inactive" or something like that so you may not find any
>>reference to any resemblance or our group. I believe I'm correct in
>>stating that, by this categorization, the IETF in no way means to
>>discourage the PWG from conversing, clarifying etc. in preparation for
>>"reactivation" if and when appropriate. The printer MIB version just
>>placed on the server by Randy Turner is evidence of this activity.
>>
>>"Officially", the PWG is also the body that evaluates "type-2" enumeration
>>requests related to RFC1759 (as defined and described in the RFC).
>>
>>Hope this helps.
>>
>>Harry Lewis
>>Printing Systems Architecture and Standards
>>IBM Printing Systems - Boulder, CO
>>(303) 924-5337 tie-line 263 ** harryl@vnet.ibm.com
Also, as far as trusting that the hrMIB bits will be accepted - isn't this a
bit open-ended for an institution like the IETF? I do want to trust, as you
recommend, but I'm not sure where this leaves us?
---------------------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 03/14/97 10:56 AM
---------------------------
IINUS1.RSCS3943@D03AU018
03/13/97 06:39 PM
Please respond to IINUS1.RSCS3943 @ VM
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
cc:
Subject: Re: PMP> Minutes of the Top-25 call
On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Harry Lewis <harryl@VNET.IBM.COM> wrote:
*stuff deleted*
> >Please go ahead and assume that these five bits can be added,
> >and we will have final confirmation by late April/early May.
>
> However, I need some clarification on the status.
>
> We've been working on moving the Printer MIB forward for more than
> a year now.
I wonder how you arrive at one year? Looking back through my notes,
I find 12/23/96 as the date I sent the email telling everyone
what we had to do to get to DRAFT standard. It looks like three
months to me.
> Tightening the definition of the "top 25" alerts ranks
> high on the list of meaningful accomplishments. We can't afford
> to proceed with the assumption that hrMIB will accept the new
> hrPrinterDetectedErrorState bits only to find out in *May* that
> this is not so.
Then prepare a back-up plan; that's the only alterantive.
> Is it just "paper work" that will have to wait until May? If we do
> proceed, as recommended is there any chance the change will be rejected
> later?
Harry -- I cannot comment on this. I am going to ask
you to have faith that all the right things are happening to
make adding the five bits a successful outcome.