I concur with your remorse. I wish it could be different.
However, if the network printer and printing systems industries
collectively implement products around the same specification,
then the effort will succeed...whether or not the specification
is formally blessed "standard" or not.
De facto standards work very well, too. (Sometimes even better.)
It would be worth the effort to consider the case of DMI. That
effort was never folded into the IETF domain (right??), yet it
garnered considerable backing from a large industry. And, despite
its slow growth out of the starting gate, does not appear to be
going away.
If the printer industry agrees upon a standard--and works together
to ship products against that standard--then it's a "standard".
A rose by any other name, etc...
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Bergman wrote:
>
> It is discouraging to have worked for almost two years to move the Printer
> MIB to Proposed status and now find that we either wait an indefinite time
> to achieve this goal or keep the new document at Draft status. Also, some
> changes were ignored or modified to insure that there would not be any
> objections to move the document to Proposed.
>
> With that said, I also agree that we are better off to release the new
> Printer MIB at Proposed than to hold the document for what could be years.
>
> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.