Dataproducts presently has a private MIB for finisher functions and
I strongly support the development of a standard finisher MIB.
(Sorry that this is a such a late response, but I am still trying
to catch up after returning from vacation.)
Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.
On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Ira Mcdonald x10962 wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> I certainly see your need. There was agitation just in the last
> few weeks in Xerox for a Xerox-private extension to the Printer MIB
> for 'simple' FINISHER sub-unit description and status.
>
> But it is considerably too late to add to the Printer MIB v2
> (and w/ IETF delays and requirements for two fully interoperable
> implementations we can expect that the Printer MIB v3 can't
> realistically be an RFC before 1999 at the earliest), so I
> would suggest a SEPARATE MIB for the FINISHER (as Harry and
> others already commented).
>
> Because IETF Working Group charters are normally for six-months
> duration, a pretty solid cut at a Finisher MIB should be done
> BEFORE asking the IETF for a charter (to allow for the usual
> comments and discussion). While the LMO MIF does exist (and I
> haven't read it), I have been told by low-end product teams
> in Xerox that it is NOT very close to what a low-end product
> would want to describe their finishing capabilities (it does
> after all stand for 'Large Mail-Room Operations').
>
> If you are interested in pursuing a Finisher MIB standard,
> please send mail to me (imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com) and
> Tom Hastings (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com). Perhaps other
> PWG members (or listeners) are interested in working on a
> 'simple' Finisher MIB?
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira McDonald (outside consultant at Xerox)
> High North Inc
> PO Box 221
> Grand Marais, MI 49839
> 906-494-2434 (voice only)
>